U.S. Chlamydia Cases at Record High, Over 1 Million Cases

Share This Story

Default Image

The Center for Disease Control recently released its annual Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance report for 2007, the most recent year for which data was available. Chief among the report's revelations was that chlamydia infections are at an all-time high in the U.S., with over one-million reported cases, a 7.5 percent increase from the previous year. In addition, infection rates were nearly three times higher for men than women, with economically-disadvantaged women at the highest risk.

A more detailed analysis of the report is below:

Chlamydia

In 2007, 1,108,374 cases of sexually transmitted Chlamydia trachomatis infection were reported to CDC. This is the largest number of cases ever reported to CDC for any condition. This case count corresponds to a rate of 370.2 cases per 100,000 population, an increase of 7.5% compared with the rate in 2006.

Rates of reported chlamydial infections among women have been increasing annually since the late 1980s when public programs for screening and treatment of women were first established to avert pelvic inflammatory disease and related complications. The continued increase in chlamydia case reports in 2007 most likely represents a continued increase in screening for this infection, more sensitive tests, and more complete national reporting, but it may also reflect a true increase in morbidity.

In 2007, the overall rate of chlamydial infection in the United States among women (543.6 cases per 100,000 females) was almost three times the rate among men (190.0 cases per 100,000 males), reflecting the large number of women screened for this disease. However, with the increased availability of urine testing, men are increasingly being tested for chlamydial infection. From 2003 through 2007, the chlamydia rate in men increased by 43% (compared with a 17% increase in women over this period). Data from multiple sources on prevalence of chlamydial infection in defined
populations have been useful in monitoring disease burden and guiding chlamydia screening programs.

In 2007, the median state-specific chlamydia test positivity among women 15
to 24 years of age who were screened at selected family planning clinics in all states,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands was 6.9% (range: 2.9% to
16.8%).

At selected prenatal clinics in 22 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands the median state-specific chlamydia prevalence was 7.4% (range: 2.0% to 20.7%).

The prevalence of infection is greater among economically-disadvantaged women 16 to 24 years of age who entered the National Job Training Program in 2007 from 40 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The median state-specific prevalence was 13.2% (range: 3.8% to 23.5%). Among men entering the program in 2007 from 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico the median state-specific chlamydia prevalence was 7.2% (range: 2.0% to 14.5%).

The prevalence is also high among adolescent women entering juvenile detention centers. In 73 centers the median chlamydia positivity by facility was 14.3% (range: 2.5% to 32.1%). Among adolescent men entering 109 juvenile detention centers, the median chlamydia positivity by facility was 5.7% (range: 0.0% to 14.2%).

Although these data on prevalence are not entirely comparable because of differences
in the populations screened, in the performance characteristics of the screening tests, and variations in screening criteria, they provide important information on the continuing high burden of disease in the United States.

To read the full report from the CDC, click here.

Share This Story

`
Jacknoknife's picture

If you search the web, you find quite a bit about a first New Zealand Study (2006?) as to STDs and circumcision. A later new study from New Zealand has been published in The Journal of Pediatrics showing there is no difference in the incidence of catching a STD. This was a bigger and longer study and yet gets very little press.

Of the 499 men studied, 201 (40.3%) had been circumcised by age 3 years. The circumcised and uncircumcised groups differed little in socioeconomic characteristics and sexual behavior. Overall, up to age 32 years, the incidence rates for all STIs were not statistically significantly different - 23.4 and 24.4 per 1000 person-years for the uncircumcised and circumcised men, respectively. This was not affected by adjusting for any of the socioeconomic or sexual behavior characteristics.

It is very clear that the pro circumcison propagandists are winning the press wars. However, with no meaningful advantage, why would anyone choose to cut off a protective genital part that is also the most senistive male genital part. More nerve endings are lost to male circumcision than are in the clitoris. Of course it affects sex, ED (as you age) and an asian study showed that more circed men have Premature Ejaculation problems -- from the scar sending false signals to the brain.

If you have had these parts, you know this is like having lips of fingertips removed. Uncircumcised is not just intact, it is NATURAL, cut is a mutilation of a very imp[ortant part of the body. Stop advocating cutting baby boy genitals.

Hal 84's picture

Could it be that the pro circumcision people are correct in that chlamydia thrives and re-infects more when the involved male is uncircumcised?

We do have a slight rise in some places of the number of uncircumcised males. Part f this is due to migration from mexico or asia where circumcision rates are low.

Another source is a shift in the percentage of males being circumcised. Ever since www. has been operative there has been a concerted effort by anti circumcision groups to load the web with anti circumcision sites. The ratio of the anti sites to the pro has been lopsided. In the US this has been partly the result of the anti's being on the defensive, and feeling a need to glorify the "intact" state.

We also have some increase in the number of men that are capable of re-infecting women due to a foreskin covering by virtue of the internet promoted practice of foreskin "restoration" which also creates an environment conducive to keeping chlamydia available for re-infection of both partners.

We have the incongruity of mothers opposing circumcision of their sons in spite of they themselves are possibly married to circumcised men!

It has always been considered quite the usual experience to find Chlamydia to be largely a problem manifesting itself where the husband is uncircumcised. When this is so there is a high probability of the intact male cyclicaly re-infecting the woman. This happens because the foreskin provides a sheltered, damp environment to sustain the chlamydia.

H 84

Hugh7's picture

H 84: "Could it be that the pro circumcision people are correct in that chlamydia thrives and re-infects more when the involved male is uncircumcised?"

The research says No. The Laumann study found 26/1033 circumcised men had chlamydia, while none out of 353 intact men did. Turner et al. (Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 35(7):689-695, July 2008) found that "among 5925 women (2180 from Uganda, 2228 from Zimbabwe, and 1517 from Thailand), ... M[ale ]C[ircumcision] was not associated with women's risk of acquisition of ... chlamydial (Ct), gonococcal (GC), or trichomonal (Tv) infections..."

So there is no good reason to even think of circumcision. But never mind, whatever anyones makes up about circumcision having benefits, someone will believe it and someone will pass it on.

Michael Glass's picture

It appears that reported cases of chlamydia have been rising at least partly because of a new and more sensitive test for the infection. Please see http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/Soaring-UK-rates-of-Chlamydia-infection-partly-caused-by-more-sensitive-tests-6466-1 /

M. Glass

ml66uk's picture

Women have a "sheltered, damp environment" too. Which parts of them do you think should be cut off?

Recent research from New Zealand showed that circumcised men had a marginally higher rate of STD's btw. Safe sex works against STD's, not genital surgery.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social