Assessing thresholds of resistance prevalence at which empiric treatment of gonorrhea should change among men who have sex with men in the US: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since common diagnostic tests for gonorrhea do not provide information about susceptibility to antibiotics, treatment of gonorrhea remains empiric. Antibiotics used for empiric therapy are usually changed once resistance prevalence exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., 5%). A low switch threshold is intended to increase the probability that an infection is successfully treated with the first-line antibiotic, but it could also increase the pace at which recommendations are switched to newer antibiotics. Little is known about the impact of changing the switch threshold on the incidence of gonorrhea, the rate of treatment failure, and the overall cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with gonorrhea. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed a transmission model of gonococcal infection with multiple resistant strains to project gonorrhea-associated costs and loss in QALYs under different switch thresholds among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States. We accounted for the costs and disutilities associated with symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and sequelae, and combined costs and QALYs in a measure of net health benefit (NHB). Our results suggest that under a scenario where 3 antibiotics are available over the next 50 years (2 suitable for the first-line therapy of gonorrhea and 1 suitable only for the retreatment of resistant infections), changing the switch threshold between 1% and 10% does not meaningfully impact the annual number of gonorrhea cases, total costs, or total QALY losses associated with gonorrhea. However, if a new antibiotic is to become available in the future, choosing a lower switch threshold could improve the population NHB. If in addition, drug-susceptibility testing (DST) is available to inform retreatment regimens after unsuccessful first-line therapy, setting the switch threshold at 1% to 2% is expected to maximize the population NHB. A limitation of our study is that our analysis only focuses on the MSM population and does not consider the influence of interventions such as vaccine and common use of rapid drugs susceptibility tests to inform first-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Changing the switch threshold for first-line antibiotics may not substantially change the health and financial outcomes associated with gonorrhea. However, the switch threshold could be reduced when newer antibiotics are expected to become available soon or when in addition to future novel antibiotics, DST is also available to inform retreatment regimens.

Vaccination May Be Economically and Epidemiologically Advantageous Over Frequent Screening for Gonorrhea Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhea's rapid development of antimicrobial resistance underscores the importance of new prevention modalities. Recent evidence suggests that a serogroup B meningococcal vaccine may be partially effective against gonococcal infection. However, the viability of vaccination and the role it should play in gonorrhea prevention are an open question. METHODS: We modeled the transmission of gonorrhea over a 10-year period in a heterosexual population to find optimal patterns of year-over-year investment of a fixed budget in vaccination and screening programs. Each year, resources could be allocated to vaccinating people or enrolling them in a quarterly screening program. Stratifying by mode (vaccination vs. screening), sex (male vs. female), and enrollment venue (background screening vs. symptomatic visit), we consider 8 different ways of controlling gonorrhea. We then found the year-over-year pattern of investment among those 8 controls that most reduced the incidence of gonorrhea under different assumptions. A compartmental transmission model was parameterized from existing literature in the US context. RESULTS: Vaccinating men with recent symptomatic infection, which selected for higher sexual activity, was optimal for population-level gonorrhea control. Given a prevention budget of $3 per capita, 9.5% of infections could be averted ($299 per infection averted), decreasing gonorrhea sequelae and associated antimicrobial use by similar percentages. These results were consistent across sensitivity analyses that increased the budget, prioritized incidence or prevalence reductions in women, or lowered screening costs. Under a scenario where only screening was implemented, just 5.5% of infections were averted. CONCLUSIONS: A currently available vaccine, although only modestly effective, may be superior to frequent testing for population-level gonorrhea control.

Relative Cost and Infectious Days Averted Associated With Rapid Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Testing Among Men Who Have Sex With Men.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests (routine NAATs) for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) can take several days to result and therefore delay treatment. Rapid point-of-care GC/CT NAAT (rapid NAAT) could reduce the time to treatment and therefore onward transmission. This study evaluated the incremental cost per infectious day averted and overall cost of implementation associated with rapid compared with routine NAAT. METHODS: Prospective sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment data from men who have sex with men and transgender women in San Diego who received rapid NAAT between November 2018 and February 2021 were evaluated. Historical time from testing to treatment for routine NAAT was abstracted from the literature. Costs per test for rapid and routine NAAT were calculated using a micro-costing approach. The incremental cost per infectious day averted comparing rapid to routine NAAT and the costs of rapid GC/CT NAAT implementation in San Diego Public Health STI clinics were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 2333 individuals underwent rapid NAAT with a median time from sample collection to treatment of 2 days compared with 7 to 14 days for routine NAAT equating to a reduction of 5 to 12 days. The cost of rapid and routine GC/CT NAAT was $57.86 and $18.38 per test, respectively, with a cost-effectiveness of between $2.43 and $5.82 per infectious day averted. The incremental cost of rapid NAAT improved when at least 2000 tests were performed annually. CONCLUSIONS: Although rapid GC/CT NAAT is more expensive than routine testing, the reduction of infectious days between testing and treatment may reduce transmission and provide improved STI treatment services to patients.

Economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial of near-to-patient testing for sexually transmitted infections.

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.