Changes in chlamydia control activities in Europe between 2007 and 2012: a cross-national survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the levels of chlamydia control activities including primary prevention, effective case management with partner management and surveillance were assessed in 2012 across countries in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA), on initiative of the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) survey, and the findings were compared with those from a similar survey in 2007. METHODS: Experts in the 30 EU/EEA countries were invited to respond to an online questionnaire; 28 countries responded, of which 25 participated in both the 2007 and 2012 surveys. Analyses focused on 13 indicators of chlamydia prevention and control activities; countries were assigned to one of five categories of chlamydia control. RESULTS: In 2012, more countries than in 2007 reported availability of national chlamydia case management guidelines (80% vs. 68%), opportunistic chlamydia testing (68% vs. 44%) and consistent use of nucleic acid amplification tests (64% vs. 36%). The number of countries reporting having a national sexually transmitted infection control strategy or a surveillance system for chlamydia did not change notably. In 2012, most countries (18/25, 72%) had implemented primary prevention activities and case management guidelines addressing partner management, compared with 44% (11/25) of countries in 2007. CONCLUSION: Overall, chlamydia control activities in EU/EEA countries strengthened between 2007 and 2012. Several countries still need to develop essential chlamydia control activities, whereas others may strengthen implementation and monitoring of existing activities.

Genital chlamydia prevalence in Europe and non-European high income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate information about the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis is needed to assess national prevention and control measures. METHODS: We systematically reviewed population-based cross-sectional studies that estimated chlamydia prevalence in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States and non-European high income countries from January 1990 to August 2012. We examined results in forest plots, explored heterogeneity using the I² statistic, and conducted random effects meta-analysis if appropriate. Meta-regression was used to examine the relationship between study characteristics and chlamydia prevalence estimates. RESULTS: We included 25 population-based studies from 11 EU/EEA countries and 14 studies from five other high income countries. Four EU/EEA Member States reported on nationally representative surveys of sexually experienced adults aged 18-26 years (response rates 52-71%). In women, chlamydia point prevalence estimates ranged from 3.0-5.3%; the pooled average of these estimates was 3.6% (95% CI 2.4, 4.8, I² 0%). In men, estimates ranged from 2.4-7.3% (pooled average 3.5%; 95% CI 1.9, 5.2, I² 27%). Estimates in EU/EEA Member States were statistically consistent with those in other high income countries (I² 0% for women, 6% for men). There was statistical evidence of an association between survey response rate and estimated chlamydia prevalence; estimates were higher in surveys with lower response rates, (p = 0.003 in women, 0.018 in men). CONCLUSIONS: Population-based surveys that estimate chlamydia prevalence are at risk of participation bias owing to low response rates. Estimates obtained in nationally representative samples of the general population of EU/EEA Member States are similar to estimates from other high income countries.

Comparing Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine schedules: a systematic review and meta-analysis of vaccine trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal schedule and the need for a booster dose are unclear for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines. We systematically reviewed relative effects of Hib vaccine schedules. METHODS: We searched 21 databases to May 2010 or June 2012 and selected randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared different Hib schedules (3 primary doses with no booster dose [3p+0], 3p+1 and 2p+1) or different intervals in primary schedules and between primary and booster schedules. Outcomes were clinical efficacy, nasopharyngeal carriage and immunological response. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty trials from 15 countries were included; 16 used vaccines conjugated to tetanus toxoid (polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid). No trials assessed clinical or carriage outcomes. Twenty trials examined immunological outcomes and found few relevant differences. Comparing polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid 3p+0 with 2p+0, there was no difference in seropositivity at the 1.0 µg/mL threshold by 6 months after the last primary dose (combined risk difference -0.02; 95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.06). Only small differences were seen between schedules starting at different ages, with different intervals between primary doses, or with different intervals between primary and booster doses. Individuals receiving a booster were more likely to be seropositive than those at the same age who did not. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence from trials that any 2p+1, 3p+0 or 3p+1 schedule of Hib conjugate vaccine is likely to provide better protection against Hib disease than other schedules. Until more data become available, scheduling is likely to be determined by epidemiological and programmatic considerations in individual settings.