| Literature DB >> 23800206 |
Ashleigh R Tuite1, David N Fisman, Sharmistha Mishra.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Syphilis incidence among men who have sex with men (MSM) continues to rise despite attempts to increase screening and treatment uptake. We examined the marginal effect of increased frequency versus increased coverage of screening on syphilis incidence in Toronto, Canada.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23800206 PMCID: PMC3699384 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-606
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Model parameters
| | | | | |
| Population size | | 2,000 | | |
| Time spent in model (years) (min, max, mode) | | 1, 34, 17 | Triangular | [ |
| Proportion of MSM who are HIV positive | | 0.2 | | [ |
| | | | | |
| Probability of transmission (per act) (min, max, mode) | Penile-anal/Penile-oral | 0.01, 0.05, 0.014 | Triangular | [ |
| Incubation period (days) | | 21-28 | Uniform discrete | [ |
| Infection/infectious period (days) | | | | [ |
| | Primary | 45-60 | Uniform discrete | |
| | Secondary | 100-140 | Uniform discrete | |
| | Early latent* | 365 | | |
| | Recurrent | 90 | | |
| | Late Latent* | Until end of life in model | | |
| Probability of recurrent syphilis | | 0.25 | | [ |
| Duration of protective immunity following | | | | [ |
| treatment (years) | ||||
| | Primary or secondary syphilis | 0 | | |
| | Latent syphilis | 5 | | |
| | | | | |
| Number of partners in past 6 months (proportion of population in each category) | | | | [ |
| | 1 | 0.28 | | |
| | 2-9 | 0.48 | | |
| | 10-29 | 0.15 | | |
| | 30-75 | 0.09 | | |
| Maximum number of partnersin past 6 months (by partner number category) (min, max, mode) | | | | |
| | 1 | 1 | | Assumption |
| | 2-9 | 2,9,8 | Triangular | |
| | 10-29 | 10,29,25 | Triangular | |
| | 30-75 | 30,75,50 | Triangular | |
| Duration of partnership (days) (min, max, mode) | | | | [ |
| | Casual | 1,2,1 | Triangular | |
| | Regular | 7,3000,365 | Triangular | |
| | | | | |
| Frequency of anal sex (per day) | | | | [ |
| | Casual partnership | 0.7 | | |
| | Regular partnership | 0.3 | | |
| Frequency of oral sex (per day) | | | | [ |
| | Casual partnership | 1 | | |
| | Regular partnership | 0.3 | | |
| Probability of condom use (anal sex) | | | | [ |
| | HIV-concordant | 0.5 | | |
| | HIV-discordant | 0.8 | | |
| Condom efficacy | Assume condom use for anal intercourse only | 0.9 | | [ |
| | | | | |
| Probability of seeking medical care for symptoms | | | | [ |
| | Primary | 0.25 | | |
| | Secondary | 0.60 | | |
| Time to treat (days) | Primary | 3-56 | Uniform | [ |
| | Secondary | 1-57 | Uniform | |
| Proportionof population screened routinely for | | | | [ |
| syphilis | assumption | |||
| | HIV positive | 0.5 | | |
| | HIV negative | 0.2 | | |
| Test sensitivity | Treponemal-specific screening test | 0.95 | | [ |
| Probability of partner notification | | | | Assumption |
| | Casual partner | 0.1 | | |
| | Regular partner | 0.6 | | |
| Trace-back period for partner notification | | | | [ |
| (months) | ||||
| | Primary | 3 | | |
| | Secondary | 6 | | |
| | Early latent | 12 | | |
| Time from index case identification to screening of named partner(s) (days) | 3-21 | Assumption |
*Not infectious.
Figure 1Schematic of the infection transmission component of the model. Each box represents a discrete health state for an individual, with transition times between health states defined in Table 1. Dashed lines represent transitions that occur following successful treatment of syphilis-infected individuals.
Syphilis screening strategies evaluated in the model
| (A) Base case | Screen every 12 months | • 20% of HIV-negative individuals screened |
| • 50% of HIV-positive individuals screened | ||
| • 60% of regular and 10% of casual partners of infectious index cases treated | ||
| • 520 tests performed annually | ||
| (B) Increase coverage of screening | Increase coverage by 10% | Same as (A), but: |
| • 30% of HIV-negative individuals screened | ||
| • 60% of HIV-positive individuals screened | ||
| • 720 tests performed annually | ||
| (C) Increase frequency of screening | Screen every 6 or every 3 months | Same as (A), but |
| • Frequency of screening in population is increased to every 6 (1040 tests annually) or 3 (2080 tests annually) months* | ||
| | ||
| (D) Equivalent number of tests | Screen a proportion of the population every 12 months such that the total number tests performedis equivalent to (C) | To equal every 6 months: |
| • 100% of HIV-positive individuals screened and 40% of HIV-negative individuals screened (1040 tests annually) | ||
| To equal every 3 months: | ||
| • 100% of the population screened (2000 tests annually)* |
*Note that there are 80 extra tests required annually for the screen every 3 months strategy, compared to the equivalent number of tests strategy with 100% annual coverage.
Figure 2Model-projected annual rates of reported infectious syphilis. Results are based on 1000 realizations of each intervention scenario and are presented as mean values with corresponding 95% uncertainty bounds. Prior to 2011, all scenarios included annual screening only, with the specified interventions implemented at the start of 2011 (indicated by a dashed line).
Figure 3Model-projected annual rates of reported infectious syphilis under equivalent test volume strategies. Results are based on 1000 realizations of each intervention scenario and are presented as mean values with corresponding 95% uncertainty bounds. Prior to 2011, all scenarios included annual screening only, with the specified interventions implemented at the start of 2011 (indicated by a dashed line). 3-monthly and 100% annual screening (black lines) required approximately the same number of screening tests annually, as did the 6-monthly and 52% annual screening (grey lines).
Figure 4Expected reduction in infectious syphilis cases following implementation of different intervention strategies. The proportion of cases averted was calculated relative to the expected number of cases in the base case scenario (no increase in frequency or coverage of screening). Proportion of cases averted is presented for both diagnosed cases and incident cases (reported and unreported), and is calculated using the mean value of 1000 realizations for each intervention scenario. Error bars represent 95% uncertainty bounds. Strategies requiring the same number of annual tests are indicated.