| Literature DB >> 23383249 |
Kate M Mitchell1, Andrew P Cox, David Mabey, Joseph D Tucker, Rosanna W Peeling, Peter Vickerman.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In China, female sex workers (FSWs) are at high risk of syphilis infection, but are hard to reach for interventions. Point-of-care testing introduces opportunities for expanding syphilis control measures. Modelling is used to estimate the impact of using rapid tests to screen FSWs for syphilis. In other settings, modelling has predicted large rebounds in infectious syphilis following screening, which may undermine any impact achieved.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23383249 PMCID: PMC3559538 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055622
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Model structure: syphilis stages and transitions.
Schematic diagram showing different stages of infection for infected FSWs, clients and regular partners, and transitions between different stages. Leaving rates are not shown ( leaving every compartment). Solid lines show normal transitions in the natural history, dashed lines show transitions due to treatment.
Model parameter values with uncertainty ranges.
| Description | Symbol | Estimated Value | Range | Source |
| Syphilis epidemiological and transmission related parameters | ||||
| Transmission probability per sex act |
| 0.3 | 0.092–0.627 | Estimates from prospective controlled trials reviewed in Garnett |
| Duration of syphilis infection by stage in weeks | ||||
| Incubating | 1/ | 3.57 | 3.00–4.00 | Data from experimental and natural human infections |
| Primary | 1/ | - | 2.66–6.57 | Data from experimental and natural human infections |
| Secondary | 1/ | 15.43 | 4.29–52.14 | From study of untreated patients in Oslo |
| Remission | 1/ | 26 | 4.29–52.14 | Oslo study of untreated patients noted that 23.6% of patients suffered a relapse, and 90% of these occurred within 1 year |
| Recurrent secondary | 1/ | Assumed same as secondary | ||
| Latent Tertiary | 1/ | Lifelong (i.e. | - | Assumed lifelong, as in previous modelling studies |
| Proportion entering recurrent secondary (via remission) |
| 0.236 | 0.21–0.26 | Oslo study of untreated patients found 23.6% of 1,035 patients developed recurrent secondary infection |
| Duration of immunity in weeks | 1/ | - | 0–1300 | No data available. Previous modelling by Grassly |
| Degree of partial immune protection |
| - | 0–1 | No data available so wide range used |
| Proportion infectious in recurrent secondary phase |
| 0.20 | 0.1–0.3 | Depends on the prevalence of wet genital lesions in the recurrent secondary stage. Mandell |
| Efficacy of condoms in protecting against transmission of syphilis |
| - | 0.365–0.85 | A longitudinal study |
| Behavioural parameters for female sex workers and their clients, and for regular partnerships of FSW | ||||
| FSW population size | N1+N2 | 1,000 | - | Fixed number used, split into two groups as described below |
| Client population size | N3 | Calculated by balancing demand and supply of commercial sex using equation N3 = (C1N1+C2N2)/C3 | ||
| Proportion of FSW who have no regular partner |
| 0.48 | - | Fixed-data from FSW in Kaiyuan City study |
| Proportion of FSW in low risk group | N2/(N1+N2) | 0.621 | 0.4–0.7 | Proportions in Kaiyuan City study from low risk venues |
| Duration of participation in commercial sex, in weeks | ||||
| FSW low risk group | 1/ | 176.8 | 72.6–291.5 | Linear interpolation used to estimate the median and inter-quartile range from categorical current duration data in Kaiyuan City study |
| FSW high risk group | 1/ | 219.3 | 85.4–445.2 | |
| Clients Overall | 1/ | - | 390–1291.2 | No data from China available so data from elsewhere |
| Duration of regular partnerships in weeks | 1/ | 520 | - | Fixed estimate; assumes average partnership duration of 10 years which is similar to China studies |
| Frequency of commercial sex per week | ||||
| FSW low risk group | Cl | 2.3 | 0.75–3.77 | Weighted (by sample size in each venue) median obtained across venues defined as high or low risk by Wang |
| FSW high risk group | Ch | 4.7 | 1.57–7.83 | |
| Clients Overall | Ccl | - | 0.07–0.3 | Two estimates from Yunnan |
| Frequency of sex with regular partners per week | Cr | 1.3 | - | Fixed estimate; estimates from different settings in China suggest 1–2 per week |
| Consistency of condom use | ||||
| Low risk FSW with clients |
| 88.2% | 84.9–91.0% | Data from Kaiyuan City |
| High risk FSW with clients |
| 76.0% | 70.5–80.9% | |
| FSW with regular partners |
| 30% | - | Fixed estimate; 16% of FSW report always using condoms with regular partners in Kaiyuan City |
| Background rate of treatment per week | ||||
| FSW |
| - | 0.19–0.96% | No data-assumed 10–50% are treated per year. |
| Clients |
| - | 0.19–0.96% | |
| Regular partners |
| 0 | - | No data-assumed to be 0 in simulations shown or alternatively same as |
| Syphilis prevalence data used for model fitting | ||||
| FSW low risk group | 6.1% | 4.1–8.7% | Data from Kaiyuan City | |
| FSW high risk group | 9.7% | 6.5–13.8% | ||
| FSW Overall | 7.5% | 5.7–9.6% | ||
| Clients Overall | 2.4% | 1–7.4% | No data from Kaiyuan city but 2.4% (1–4.6%) elsewhere in Yunnan Province | |
| New FSWs and clients |
| 0.66% | 0.31–1.43% | Median and IQR for prevalence of premarital individuals in the general population |
Figure 2Projected intervention impact for the baseline model.
The baseline model is model 3, which has a heterogeneous FSW population, incoming syphilis infection and no regular partners. A test with sensitivity of 87% was used, with FSWs being tested on average once per year, and with immediate treatment of all individuals testing positive. Results are shown over 5 years of the intervention and for an additional 10 years after the intervention stopped. Panels (A) and (B) summarise the range of prevalences seen across the different fits (N = 326) for (A) FSWs and (B) clients. The thick solid line shows the median, the dark shaded area shows the interquartile range (25th–75th percentile), the light shaded area the full range (minimum-maximum), and the dashed line shows the best fit. The black circles with error bars represent the data (mean and range) that the model was fit to. In panels (C) and (D) impact is presented as (C) percentage change in prevalence (compared to pre-intervention endemic levels) and (D) percentage infections averted since the start of the intervention (compared with the situation where there was no intervention), and these are shown at yearly intervals. The thick horizontal line in each box is the median, with the box limits denoting the 25th and 75th percentiles and the whiskers denoting the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. The dotted vertical lines mark the start and end of the intervention.
Figure 3Effect of screening coverage on intervention impact after 5 years of intervention.
Results are shown for both FSWs and their clients for all of the fits (N = 326) for model 3 (heterogeneous FSW population, incoming syphilis infection, no regular partners). A test with sensitivity of 87% was used, with immediate treatment of all individuals testing positive. Impact is presented as (A) relative reduction in prevalence (compared to pre-intervention levels) and (B) percentage infections averted since the start of the intervention (compared with the situation where there was no intervention). The thick horizontal line in each box is the median, with the box limits denoting the 25th and 75th percentiles and the whiskers denoting the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles.
Figure 4Timing and height of peak rebound in infectious syphilis for different FSW syphilis prevalence levels.
Results are shown for model 3 using the best fit parameter set and varying (transmission probability per act) between 0.01 and 1 to produce different epidemic settings. A 5-year intervention with yearly testing of all FSWs, using a rapid test of 87% sensitivity, was simulated. The x-axis shows overall pre-intervention syphilis prevalence (all infected stages) in the FSW population (high risk+low risk), and the rebound statistics shown are for infectious syphilis (primary, secondary and recurrent secondary stages) in the total FSW population (high risk+low risk).
Figure 5Overtreatment and treatment efficiency in model 3 at different intervention coverage.
(A)% of treatments administered over the last month which were correct (i.e.% of those treated that have current infection rather than previous infection) over the course of a 5-year intervention using a rapid test with 87% sensitivity with a testing interval of 1 or 4 years as indicated, using model structure 3 (heterogeneous FSW population, incoming syphilis infection, no regular partners), (B) efficiency of treatment (total number of infections averted in FSWs and clients per treatment administered) over the last month, over this same period.
Figure 6Impact of intervention on prevalence and percentage of infections averted for different model structures.
Impact is shown at three different time points for FSWs (A,C) and clients (B,D). Impact is presented as relative change in prevalence (compared to pre-intervention levels) (A,B) and percentage infections averted since the start of the intervention (compared with the situation where there was no intervention) (C,D). Simulated intervention assumed FSW were screened once per year with a rapid test of 87% sensitivity, with all individuals testing positive receiving immediate treatment. The thick horizontal line in each box is the median, with the box limits denoting the 25th and 75th percentiles and the whiskers denoting the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. Impact is shown at 6 months, 5 years and 10 years after the start of a 5-year intervention (so that 10 years is 5 years after the end of the intervention). The different population models are: (1) baseline-homogeneous FSW population with no syphilis infection among FSWs and clients; (2) heterogeneous FSW population with no infection in new FSWs and clients; (3) heterogeneous FSW population with syphilis infection in both new FSWs and new clients; (4) heterogeneous FSW population with incoming syphilis infection and regular partners of FSW included.