Economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial of near-to-patient testing for sexually transmitted infections
Authors:
- Zhang, Ying
- Vodstrcil, Lenka A.
- Htaik, Kay
- Plummer, Erica L.
- De Petra, Vesna
- Sen, Melodi G.
- Williamson, Deborah A.
- Owlad, Monica
- Murray, Gerald
- Chow, Eric PF
- Fairley, Christopher K.
- Bradshaw, Catriona S.
- Ong, Jason J.
Details:
Journal of Infection and Public Health, Volume 17, Issue 7, 2024-07-31
Article Link: Click here
Background Current clinical care for common bacterial STIs (Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Mycoplasma genitalium (MG)) involves empiric antimicrobial therapy when clients are symptomatic, or if asymptomatic, waiting for laboratory testing and recall if indicated. Near-to-patient testing (NPT) can improve pathogen-specific prescribing and reduce unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use in treating sexually transmitted infections (STI) by providing same-day delivery of results and treatment. Methods We compared the economic cost of NPT to current clinic practice for managing clients with suspected proctitis, non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU), or as an STI contact, from a health provider’s perspective. With a microsimulation of 1000 clients, we calculated the cost per client tested and per STI- and pathogen- detected for each testing strategy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the main outcomes. Costs are reported as Australian dollars (2023). Results In the standard care arm, cost per client tested for proctitis, NGU in men who have sex with men (MSM) and heterosexual men were the highest at $247.96 (95% Prediction Interval (PI): 246.77–249.15), $204.23 (95% PI: 202.70–205.75) and $195.01 (95% PI: 193.81–196.21) respectively. Comparatively, in the NPT arm, it costs $162.36 (95% PI: 161.43–163.28), $158.39 (95% PI: 157.62–159.15) and $149.17 (95% PI: 148.62–149.73), respectively. Using NPT resulted in cost savings of 34.52%, 22.45% and 23.51%, respectively. Among all the testing strategies, substantial difference in cost per client tested between the standard care arm and the NPT arm was observed for contacts of CT or NG, varying from 27.37% to 35.28%. Conclusion We found that NPT is cost-saving compared with standard clinical care for individuals with STI symptoms and sexual contacts of CT, NG, and MG.