You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
The POPI trial: what does it mean for chlamydia control now?
  1. Nicola Low1,
  2. Jane Hocking2
  1. 1Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  2. 2Centre for Women's Health, Gender and Society, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Nicola Low, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland; low{at}ispm.unibe.ch

https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.2010.043737

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The results of the Prevention Of Pelvic Infection (POPI) trial,1 published soon after criticism about the value for money of the chlamydia screening programme in England,2 should make us think even harder about how to investigate and control chlamydia and its associated morbidity. Should we be doing more of the same, but better? Should we be developing new approaches? Or do we need both?

    The innovative trial by Oakeshott et al in female college students in London provides new information about the effects on pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) of a single round of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.1 By collecting specimens from all participants at baseline, Oakeshott and colleagues have provided the first data comparing the incidence of PID according to chlamydia infection status in women receiving immediate testing and treatment with those for whom testing and treatment were deferred by 12 months. The ethical decision to allow deferred testing is justified by the uncertainty about the incidence of PID in the community before the start of the trial, the low observed incidence in practice and the advice for all study participants about the availability of free chlamydia testing. The investigators randomised and followed 2529 women (mean age 20.9 years) and collected outcome data on 2377 (94%) from the women or their GPs. They obtained information from medical records of …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.

    • Competing interests JH is principal investigator on the ACCEPt trial. NL is a co-investigator on the ACCEPt trial and has given advice on the design of the CSI project. The ACCEPt trial is funded by the Australian government through the Department of Health and Ageing. However, the views expressed in the editorial are those of the authors.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.