Christian L Althaus1, Katherine M E Turner2, Catherine H Mercer3, Peter Auguste4, Tracy E Roberts4, Gill Bell5, Sereina A Herzog1, Jackie A Cassell6, W John Edmunds7, Peter J White8, Helen Ward9, Nicola Low1. 1. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 3. Centre for Sexual Health and HIV Research, Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. 4. Health Economics Facility, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 5. Academic Directorate of Communicable Diseases, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. 6. Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK. 7. Infectious Disease Epidemiology Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 8. Modelling and Economics Unit, Health Protection Agency (now Public Health England), London, UK, and MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. 9. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Partner notification is essential to the comprehensive case management of sexually transmitted infections. Systematic reviews and mathematical modelling can be used to synthesise information about the effects of new interventions to enhance the outcomes of partner notification. OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of traditional and new partner notification technologies for curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs). DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of clinical audit data; systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) published from 1 January 1966 to 31 August 2012 and of studies of health-related quality of life (HRQL) [MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA)] published from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2011; static models of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and dynamic modelling studies to improve parameter estimation and examine effectiveness. SETTING: General population and genitourinary medicine clinic attenders. PARTICIPANTS: Heterosexual women and men. INTERVENTIONS: Traditional partner notification by patient or provider referral, and new partner notification by expedited partner therapy (EPT) or its UK equivalent, accelerated partner therapy (APT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Population prevalence; index case reinfection; and partners treated per index case. RESULTS: Enhanced partner therapy reduced reinfection in index cases with curable STIs more than simple patient referral [risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.89]. There are no randomised trials of APT. The median number of partners treated for chlamydia per index case in UK clinics was 0.60. The number of partners needed to treat to interrupt transmission of chlamydia was lower for casual than for regular partners. In dynamic model simulations, >10% of partners are chlamydia positive with look-back periods of up to 18 months. In the presence of a chlamydia screening programme that reduces population prevalence, treatment of current partners achieves most of the additional reduction in prevalence attributable to partner notification. Dynamic model simulations show that cotesting and treatment for chlamydia and gonorrhoea reduce the prevalence of both STIs. APT has a limited additional effect on prevalence but reduces the rate of index case reinfection. Published quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weights were of insufficient quality to be used in a cost-effectiveness study of partner notification in this project. Using an intermediate outcome of cost per infection diagnosed, doubling the efficacy of partner notification from 0.4 to 0.8 partners treated per index case was more cost-effective than increasing chlamydia screening coverage. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the improved clinical effectiveness of EPT in reducing index case reinfection. In a general heterosexual population, partner notification identifies new infected cases but the impact on chlamydia prevalence is limited. Partner notification to notify casual partners might have a greater impact than for regular partners in genitourinary clinic populations. Recommendations for future research are (1) to conduct randomised controlled trials using biological outcomes of the effectiveness of APT and of methods to increase testing for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and STIs after APT; (2) collection of HRQL data should be a priority to determine QALYs associated with the sequelae of curable STIs; and (3) standardised parameter sets for curable STIs should be developed for mathematical models of STI transmission that are used for policy-making. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
BACKGROUND: Partner notification is essential to the comprehensive case management of sexually transmitted infections. Systematic reviews and mathematical modelling can be used to synthesise information about the effects of new interventions to enhance the outcomes of partner notification. OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of traditional and new partner notification technologies for curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs). DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of clinical audit data; systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) published from 1 January 1966 to 31 August 2012 and of studies of health-related quality of life (HRQL) [MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA)] published from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2011; static models of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and dynamic modelling studies to improve parameter estimation and examine effectiveness. SETTING: General population and genitourinary medicine clinic attenders. PARTICIPANTS: Heterosexual women and men. INTERVENTIONS: Traditional partner notification by patient or provider referral, and new partner notification by expedited partner therapy (EPT) or its UK equivalent, accelerated partner therapy (APT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Population prevalence; index case reinfection; and partners treated per index case. RESULTS: Enhanced partner therapy reduced reinfection in index cases with curable STIs more than simple patient referral [risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.89]. There are no randomised trials of APT. The median number of partners treated for chlamydia per index case in UK clinics was 0.60. The number of partners needed to treat to interrupt transmission of chlamydia was lower for casual than for regular partners. In dynamic model simulations, >10% of partners are chlamydia positive with look-back periods of up to 18 months. In the presence of a chlamydia screening programme that reduces population prevalence, treatment of current partners achieves most of the additional reduction in prevalence attributable to partner notification. Dynamic model simulations show that cotesting and treatment for chlamydia and gonorrhoea reduce the prevalence of both STIs. APT has a limited additional effect on prevalence but reduces the rate of index case reinfection. Published quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weights were of insufficient quality to be used in a cost-effectiveness study of partner notification in this project. Using an intermediate outcome of cost per infection diagnosed, doubling the efficacy of partner notification from 0.4 to 0.8 partners treated per index case was more cost-effective than increasing chlamydia screening coverage. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the improved clinical effectiveness of EPT in reducing index case reinfection. In a general heterosexual population, partner notification identifies new infected cases but the impact on chlamydia prevalence is limited. Partner notification to notify casual partners might have a greater impact than for regular partners in genitourinary clinic populations. Recommendations for future research are (1) to conduct randomised controlled trials using biological outcomes of the effectiveness of APT and of methods to increase testing for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and STIs after APT; (2) collection of HRQL data should be a priority to determine QALYs associated with the sequelae of curable STIs; and (3) standardised parameter sets for curable STIs should be developed for mathematical models of STI transmission that are used for policy-making. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Authors: Kevin M Weiss; Jeb S Jones; David A Katz; Thomas L Gift; Kyle Bernstein; Kimberly Workowski; Eli S Rosenberg; Samuel M Jenness Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Thomas A Peterman; Kevin O'Connor; Heather M Bradley; Elizabeth A Torrone; Kyle T Bernstein Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Stephen Uong; Eli S Rosenberg; Steven M Goodreau; Nicole Luisi; Patrick Sullivan; Samuel M Jenness Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Matthew R Golden; Roxanne P Kerani; Mark Stenger; James P Hughes; Mark Aubin; Cheryl Malinski; King K Holmes Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Julius Schachter; Genevieve A F S van Liere; Petra F G Wolffs; Christian J P A Hoebe Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 3.090