Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 186, Issue 2, pp 393–397 | Cite as

Screening for asymptomatic urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection at a large Dublin maternity hospital: results of a pilot study

  • A. C. O’Higgins
  • V. Jackson
  • M. Lawless
  • D. Le Blanc
  • G. Connolly
  • R. Drew
  • M. Eogan
  • J. S. Lambert
Original Article



There are currently no Irish guidelines on screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy. Prevalence rates in the antenatal population are not known which has prevented the development of screening recommendations for this group.


The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of asymptomatic urogenital C. trachomatis infection in young women attending for care at a large maternity hospital.


All patients aged 25 years and under attending the Hospital between December 2011 and December 2013 were offered screening for urogenital C. trachomatis infection. Nucleic acid amplification testing of the C. trachomatis cryptic plasmid was performed on either endocervical swabs or first void urine samples.


There were 2687 women tested for C. trachomatis infection, 83.4 % (2241/2687) through the antenatal clinics, 7.1 % (193/2687) through the gynaecology clinic, and 9.4 % (253/2687) through the emergency department. The rate of a positive test result was 5.6 % (151/2687) overall. The rates in women ages 16–18, 19–21 and 22–25 years were 9.1 % (31/340), 6.5 % (50/774) and 4.4 % (69/1561), respectively. A positive test result was more likely in those who were unemployed (p = 0.04), those who were Irish (p = 0.03) and those who were unmarried (p < 0.01). There were no cases of neonatal C. trachomatis infection in babies born to mothers who were screened in early pregnancy.


The prevalence rate of detected C. trachomatis infection was 5.6 % in the study population. Screening of antenatal patients may have a role in preventing vertical transmission of infection to the neonate.


Chlamydia trachomatis Antenatal screening Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence 


Compliance with ethical standards


No funding was received for this work.

Conflict of interest

AOH declares that she has no conflict of interest. VJ declares that she has no conflict of interest. ML declares that she has no conflict of interest. DLB declares that he has no conflict of interest. GC declares that she has no conflict of interest. ME declares that she has no conflict of interest. JSL declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Health Protection Surveillance Centre, Health Services Executive (2011) Trends in Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) notifications, 1995–2009. Health Services Executive, DublinGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Health Protection Surveillance Centre, Health Services Executive (2012) Quarterly report in sexually transmitted infections in Ireland, 2011, quarter 4. Health Services Executive, DublinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2009) Chlamydia control in Europe. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Health Protection Surveillance Centre, Health Services Executive (2005) The need for Chlamydia screening in Ireland. Health Services Executive, DublinGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baud D, Goy G, Jaton K et al (2011) Role of Chlamydia trachomatis in miscarriage. Emerg Infect Dis 17:1630–1635CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thorne C (2011) Chlamydia screening in pregnancy: an evidence review. UK National Screening Committee Policy Review, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    LeFevre ML (2014) Screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 161:902–910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rotunda Hospital (2015) Annual clinical report 2014. Rotunda Hospital, DublinGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McMillan HM, O’Carroll H, Lambert JS et al (2006) Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending outpatient clinic in a large maternity hospital in Dublin, Ireland. Sex Transm Infect 82:503–505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keegan H, Ryan F, Malkin A et al (2009) Chlamydia trachomatis detection in cervical PreservCyt specimens from an Irish urban female population. Cytopath 20:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Health Protection Surveillance Centre and Health Research Board (2012) Chlamydia screening in Ireland: a pilot study if opportunistic screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Ireland (2007–2009). Health Research Board, DublinGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Connell E, Brennan W, Cormican M et al (2009) Chlamydia trachomatis infection and sexual behaviour among female students attending higher education in the Republic of Ireland. Pub Health 9:397–403Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heijne JCM, Tao G, Kent CK et al (2010) Uptake of regular chlamydia testing by US women: a longitudinal study. Am J Prev Med 39:243–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Chlamydia Screening Programme (2013) Annual Chlamydia diagnosis rate. National Chlamydia Screening Programme, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    World Health Organization (2011) Prevalence and incidence of selected sexually transmitted infections, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, syphilis and Trichomonas vaginalis: methods and results used by WHO to generate 2005 estimates. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Batteiger BE, Fujie Xu, Johnson RE et al (2010) Protective immunity to Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection: evidence from human studies. J Infect Dis 201(S2):S178–S189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shiely F, Horgan M, Hayes K (2010) Increased sexually transmitted infection incidence in a low risk population: identifying the risk factors. Eur J Public Health 2:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gottleib SL, Berman SM, Low N (2010) Screening and treatment to prevent sequelae in women with Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection? How much do we know? J Infect Dis 201:S156–S167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Molano M, Meijer CJLM, Weiderpass E et al (2005) The natural course of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in asymptomatic Colombian women: a 5-year follow-up study. J Infect Dis 191:907–916CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morré SA, van den Brule AJ, Rozendaal L et al (2002) The natural course of asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections: 45 % clearance and no development of clinical PID after 1-year of follow-up. Int J STD AIDS 13(S2):12–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Geisler WM (2010) Duration of untreated, uncomplicated Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection and factors associated with chlamydia resolution: a review of human studies. J Infect Dis 201(S2):S104–S113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herzog SA, Althaus CL, Heijne JCM et al (2012) Timing of progression of Chlamydia trachomatis infection to pelvic inflammatory disease: a mathematical modelling study. Infect Dis 12:187–195Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson HL, Ghanem KG, Zenilman JM et al (2011) Sexually transmitted infections and adverse pregnancy outcomes among women attending inner city public sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis 38:167–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silva MJPMA, Florencio GLD, Gabiatti JRE et al (2011) Perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with chlamydial infection: a meta-analysis study. Braz J Infect Dis 15:533–539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rours GI, Duijts L, Moll HA et al (2011) Chlamydia trachomatis infection during pregnancy associated with preterm delivery: a population-based prospective cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol 26:493–502CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blas MM, Canchihuaman FA, Alva IE et al (2007) Pregnancy outcomes in women infected with Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based cohort study in Washington State. Sex Transm Infect 83:314–318CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Andrews WW, Goldenberg RL, Mercer B et al (2000) The Preterm Prediction Study: association of second-trimester genitourinary chlamydia infection with subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:662–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andrews WW, Klebanoff MA, Thom EA et al (2006) Mid-pregnancy genitourinary tract infection with Chlamydia trachomatis: association with subsequent preterm delivery in women with bacterial vaginosis and Trichomonas vaginalis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:493–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Silveira MF, Ghanem KG, Erbelding et al (2009) Chlamydia trachomatis infection during pregnancy and the risk of preterm birth: a case–control study. Int J STD AIDS 20:465–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ong JJ, Chen M, Hocking J et al (2015) Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16–25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study. BJOG. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13567 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. C. O’Higgins
    • 1
  • V. Jackson
    • 1
  • M. Lawless
    • 1
  • D. Le Blanc
    • 1
  • G. Connolly
    • 1
  • R. Drew
    • 1
  • M. Eogan
    • 1
  • J. S. Lambert
    • 1
  1. 1.Rotunda HospitalDublin 1Ireland

Personalised recommendations