Diane R Blake1, Freya Spielberg, Vivian Levy, Shelly Lensing, Peter A Wolff, Lalitha Venkatasubramanian, Nincoshka Acevedo, Nancy Padian, Ishita Chattopadhyay, Charlotte A Gaydos. 1. From the *Department of Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA; †Department of Prevention and Community Health, George Washington University School of Public Health, Washington, DC; ‡San Mateo County Health System, San Mateo, CA; §Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; ¶Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR; ∥National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; **FHI360, Durham, NC; ††Division of Epidemiology, University of California, Berkeley, CA; and ‡‡Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results of a recent demonstration project evaluating feasibility, acceptability, and cost of a Web-based sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and e-prescription treatment program (eSTI) suggest that this approach could be a feasible alternative to clinic-based testing and treatment, but the results need to be confirmed by a randomized comparative effectiveness trial. METHODS: We modeled a decision tree comparing (1) cost of eSTI screening using a home collection kit and an e-prescription for uncomplicated treatment versus (2) hypothetical costs derived from the literature for referral to standard clinic-based STI screening and treatment. Primary outcome was number of STIs detected. Analyses were conducted from the clinical trial perspective and the health care system perspective. RESULTS: The eSTI strategy detected 75 infections, and the clinic referral strategy detected 45 infections. Total cost of eSTI was $94,938 ($1266/STI detected) from the clinical trial perspective and $96,088 ($1281/STI detected) from the health care system perspective. Total cost of clinic referral was $87,367 ($1941/STI detected) from the clinical trial perspective and $71,668 ($1593/STI detected) from the health care system perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that eSTI will likely be more cost-effective (lower cost/STI detected) than clinic-based STI screening, both in the context of clinical trials and in routine clinical care. Although our results are promising, they are based on a demonstration project and estimates from other small studies. A comparative effectiveness research trial is needed to determine actual cost and impact of the eSTI system on identification and treatment of new infections and prevention of their sequelae.
BACKGROUND: Results of a recent demonstration project evaluating feasibility, acceptability, and cost of a Web-based sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and e-prescription treatment program (eSTI) suggest that this approach could be a feasible alternative to clinic-based testing and treatment, but the results need to be confirmed by a randomized comparative effectiveness trial. METHODS: We modeled a decision tree comparing (1) cost of eSTI screening using a home collection kit and an e-prescription for uncomplicated treatment versus (2) hypothetical costs derived from the literature for referral to standard clinic-based STI screening and treatment. Primary outcome was number of STIs detected. Analyses were conducted from the clinical trial perspective and the health care system perspective. RESULTS: The eSTI strategy detected 75 infections, and the clinic referral strategy detected 45 infections. Total cost of eSTI was $94,938 ($1266/STI detected) from the clinical trial perspective and $96,088 ($1281/STI detected) from the health care system perspective. Total cost of clinic referral was $87,367 ($1941/STI detected) from the clinical trial perspective and $71,668 ($1593/STI detected) from the health care system perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that eSTI will likely be more cost-effective (lower cost/STI detected) than clinic-based STI screening, both in the context of clinical trials and in routine clinical care. Although our results are promising, they are based on a demonstration project and estimates from other small studies. A comparative effectiveness research trial is needed to determine actual cost and impact of the eSTI system on identification and treatment of new infections and prevention of their sequelae.
Authors: Robert L Cook; Lars Østergaard; Sharon L Hillier; Pamela J Murray; Chung-Chou H Chang; Diane M Comer; Roberta B Ness Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2007-02-14 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Anna S Graseck; Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Tessa Madden; Jeffrey F Peipert Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Charlotte A Gaydos; Mary Jett-Goheen; Mathilda Barnes; Laura Dize; Perry Barnes; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Emma Wilson; Caroline Free; Tim P Morris; Jonathan Syred; Irrfan Ahamed; Anatole S Menon-Johansson; Melissa J Palmer; Sharmani Barnard; Emma Rezel; Paula Baraitser Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Katy M E Turner; Katharine J Looker; Jonathan Syred; Adam Zienkiewicz; Paula Baraitser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paula Baraitser; Jonathan Syred; Vicki Spencer-Hughes; Chris Howroyd; Caroline Free; Gillian Holdsworth Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-12-05 Impact factor: 2.655