Can Risk Factor Assessment Replace Universal Screening for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia in the Third Trimester?

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is to determine whether risk factor (RF) screening can be used instead of routine third-trimester testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia in a clinic setting. We performed prospective analysis of women entering prenatal care over a 10-month period. Patients included received combined gonorrhea and chlamydia screening by DNA probe at the first prenatal visit and in the third trimester. RF examined included age <20, marital status, history of sexually transmitted disease (STD) or hepatitis, drug use and gestational age at entry into prenatal care. Only women with negative initial screens were included in univariate and multivariate analyses. Five hundred forty-two women fulfilled study criteria. Sixty percent had 1 RF; 35% had a history of STD. Third-trimester screens were positive in 4.1%. The absence of RF had a negative predictive value of 99.1%. The sensitivity and specificity of RF screening was 90.9 and 40.7%, respectively (p = 0.003). The model of best fit was obtained using any positive RF and teen as independent variables (relative risk 6.9, 95% confidence interval 1.6-29.6, p = 0.01). In an urban clinic population, comprehensive RF screening is effective in predicting women at low risk for STD in the third trimester after an initial negative test.

KEYWORD

STD - risk factor assessment - antenatal screening

REFERENCES

• 1 Witkin S S. Immune pathogenesis of asymptomatic chlamydia trachomatis in the female genital tract.  Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol . 1995;  3 169-174
• 2 Handsfield H H, Jasman L L, Roberts P L, Hanson V W, Kothenbeutel R L, Stamm W E. Criteria for selective screening for chlamydia trachomatis infection in women attending family planning clinics.  JAMA . 1986;  255 1730-1734
• 3 Humphreys J T, Henneberry J F, Rickard R S, Beebe J L. Cost-benefit analysis of selective screening criteria for chlamydia trachomatis in women attending Colorado family planning clinics.  Sex Transm Dis . 1992;  19 47-53
• 4 Sellors J W, Pickard L, Gafni A, Goldsmith C H, Jang D, Mahony J B, Chernesky M A. Effectiveness of selective vs.  universal screening for chlamydia infection in sexually active young women. Arch Int Med . 1992;  152 1837-1844
• 5 Scholes D, Stergachis A, Heidrich F E, Andulla H, Holmes K K, Stamm W E. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection.  N Engl J Med . 1996;  334 1362-1366
• 6 American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Prenatal Care. 4th ed. 1997: 75-76
• 7 MMWR. 1998 guidelines for treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.  MMWR . 1998;  47(RR-1) 1-118
• 8 CDC. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance, 1999. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2000
• 9 Genç M, M°ardh P A. A cost-effective analysis of screening and treatment for chlamydia trachomatis infection in asymptomatic women.  Ann Int Med . 1996;  124 1-7
• 10 Burstein G R, Zenilman J M, Gaydos C A, Diener-West M, Howell R, Brathwaite W, Quinn T C. Predictors of repeat chlamydia trachomatis infections diagnosed by DNA amplification testing among inner city females.  Sex Transm Inf . 2001;  77 26-32
• 11 McGregor J A, French J I. Chlamydia trachomatis infection during pregnancy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1991;  164 1782-1789
• 12 Ryan G M, Abdella T N, McNeeley S G, Baselski V S, Drummond D E. Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy and effect of treatment on outcome.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1990;  162 34-39
• 13 Allaire A D, Huddleston J F, Graves W L, Nathan L. Initial and repeat screening for chlamydia trachomatis during pregnancy.  Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol . 1998;  6 116-122