g. increasing condom use or reducing partner numbers); (ii) increased screening, treatment Dasatinib mw and contact tracing/partner notification; (iii) the development of new biomedical prevention or therapeutic technologies (such as inhibitors vaccines) (see review by Gottlieb et al. in this issue) [15]. However, it is not feasible to implement behaviour change campaigns to a sufficient scale and efficacy to result in population-level impacts.

Since a Chlamydia vaccine is not currently available, the only viable public health strategy is the scale-up of screening for chlamydial infection coupled with the administration of a course of antibiotics and counselling or follow up for partner notification or contact tracing and also rescreening. Chlamydia screening may be cost-effective and partner notification is an effective adjunct, with treatment using azithromycin evaluated to be cost-effective [16].

Screening is generally considered to be acceptable and feasible among most target populations [17] and [18]. However, uptake is likely to be the limiting factor, Selleck PI3K inhibitor even in ideal study conditions with specific invitations for screening, with less than 45% of populations at risk of Chlamydia being routinely screened [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. Modelling studies have indicated that at least 45–60% screening levels are required to have noticeable epidemiological impacts [22], [23], [24] and [25] and these coverage levels, or greater, must be sustained at least annually, indefinitely. It is

unlikely aminophylline that the coverage and frequency of screening and treatment interventions could reach sufficiently high levels to result in epidemic declines approaching elimination. Not only are there issues of limited coverage and frequency which reduces effectiveness, but treatment efficacy is not perfect [26], [27] and [28], drug resistance is possible, re-infection is extremely common, [29] and [30] and there is no end to the need to continue regular rescreening. In addition, despite continued improvements in diagnostic and screening procedures for Chlamydia, and although antibiotics like azithromycin are available to treat infections, notifications of infections continues to increase. Antibiotic treatment of individuals may also increase susceptibility to re-infection, which is most likely due to interrupting the natural course of protective chlamydial immunity [31]. Recently, data from an in vivo study reported that not only were T-helper (Th)1 immune responses against C. trachomatis in individual women slow to develop, but that these responses were also altered by treatment with ceftriaxone and azithromycin [32]. Taken together, these facts suggest that the current main line of defence against chlamydial infections (i.e.