Point-of-care testing versus standard practice for chlamydia: a new approach to assessing the public health effect of rapid testing and treatment at local level |
| |
| Authors: | Catherine M Lowndes Ellie Sherrard-Smith Ciara Dangerfield Yoon H Choi Nathan Green Mark Jit Rob D Marshall Catherine Mercer Emma Harding-Esch Anthony Nardone Rebecca Howell-Jones John Bason Owen A Johnson Christopher P Price Charlotte A Gaydos S Tariq Sadiq Peter J White |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, Public Health England, London, UK;2. Imperial College London, London, UK;3. Department of Plant Sciences, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK;4. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK;5. University of Leeds, X-Lab Ltd, Leeds Innovation Centre, Leeds, UK;6. Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK;7. Public Health Specialty Registrar, Oxford School of Public Health, Oxford, UK;8. Infection and Immunity Research Institute, St George''s, University of London, London, UK;9. Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;10. Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | ![]()
BackgroundChlamydia trachomatis is the most commonly diagnosed bacterial sexually transmitted infection in Britain. Present standards specify treatment within 14 days of testing positive; point-of-care testing (POCT) can eliminate this delay and potentially reduce loss to follow-up; its greater convenience might increase testing. 90-min nucleic acid amplification tests are the best available POCTs for chlamydia, with alternatives under development. However, cost-effectiveness depends on cost-per-test, sensitivity and specificity, and the effect of POCT on transmission.MethodsWe developed a user-friendly web-based method, based on a transmission-dynamic model for chlamydia, to assess the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of introducing POCT in different local settings. The model uses behavioural and prevalence data from the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, and Public Health England surveillance data; these data inform on local-level variation, which is represented by sampling parameter values from within their ranges of uncertainty and selecting parameter sets that reproduce local coverage and diagnosis rates. The user can select different local settings, and vary sensitivity and specificity for the tests, specify costs (fixed and unit costs, including staff time), and then assess the effect of introducing POCT in different clinical services by comparison with a situation with no POCT. In the model, presumptive treatment is represented, which we expect to be reduced with the introduction of POCT because test results would be rapidly available to guide treatment.FindingsChanges in numbers of infections and diagnoses occurring under different scenarios (including conventional testing) were estimated, with uncertainty ranges, allowing calculation of total costs, and cost per infection (and serious sequelae) averted, while accommodating the considerable variation in chlamydia testing coverage, positivity, and diagnosis rates. Potential changes in sexual behaviour between test and treatment could determine the relative contribution of increased treatment rates and reduced treatment delay to the reduction in prevalence as a consequence of POCT.InterpretationThe effect of POCT was dependent on both the test performance characteristics and the assumptions about the implementation of the test across local services. Exploration of many uncertainties surrounding chlamydia epidemiology and screening implementation is possible with this model. This method can complement local and national knowledge, and contribute to local-level management of chlamydia infection.FundingInnovate UK (Technology Strategy Board), UK Medical Research Council, and the National Institute for Health Research. The Electronic Self-Testing Instruments for Sexually Transmitted Infection (eSTI2) Consortium eSTI2 is Funded under the UKCRC Translational Infection Research (TIR) Initiative supported by the Medical Research Council (Grant Number G0901608) with contributions to the Grant from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research on behalf of the Department of Health, the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates, and the Wellcome Trust |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
