4.6 Article

Chlamydia trachomatis Incidence and Re-Infection among Young Women - Behavioural and Microbiological Characteristics

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037778

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health and Ageing, Commonwealth of Australia, as part of a National Chlamydia Pilot program
  2. National Health and Research Council in Australia [509144]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study aimed to estimate rates of chlamydia incidence and re-infection and to investigate the dynamics of chlamydia organism load in prevalent, incident and re-infections among young Australian women. Methods: 1,116 women aged 16 to 25 years were recruited from primary care clinics in Australia. Vaginal swabs were collected at 3 to 6 month intervals for chlamydia testing. Chlamydia organism load was measured by quantitative PCR. Results: There were 47 incident cases of chlamydia diagnosed and 1,056.34 person years of follow up with a rate of 4.4 per 100 person years (95% CI: 3.3, 5.9). Incident infection was associated with being aged 16 to 20 years [RR = 3.7 (95% CI: 1.9, 7.1)], being employed [RR = 2.4 (95% CI: 1.1, 4.9)] and having two or more new sex partners [RR = 5.5 (95% CI: 2.6, 11.7)]. Recent antibiotic use was associated with a reduced incidence [RR: 0.1 (95% CI: 0.0, 0.5)]. There were 14 re-infections with a rate of 22.3 per 100 person years (95% CI: 13.2, 37.6). The median time to re-infection was 4.6 months. Organism load was higher for prevalent than incident infections (p<0.01) and for prevalent than re-infections (p<0.01). Conclusions: Chlamydia is common among young women and a high proportion of women are re-infected within a short period of time, highlighting the need for effective partner treatment and repeat testing. The difference in organism load between prevalent and incident infections suggests prevalent infection may be more important for ongoing transmission of chlamydia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据