Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of traditional and new partner notification technologies for curable sexually transmitted infections: observational study, systematic reviews and mathematical modelling.

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.

Costs and cost effectiveness of different strategies for chlamydia screening and partner notification: an economic and mathematical modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost, cost effectiveness, and sex equity of different intervention strategies within the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme. To develop a tool for calculating cost effectiveness of chlamydia control programmes at a local, national, or international level. DESIGN: An economic and mathematical modelling study with cost effectiveness analysis. Costs were restricted to those of screening and partner notification from the perspective of the NHS and excluded patient costs, the costs of reinfection, and costs of complications arising from initial infection. SETTING: England. Population Individuals eligible for the National Chlamydia Screening Programme. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost effectiveness of National Chlamydia Screening Programme in 2008-9 (as cost per individual tested, cost per positive diagnosis, total cost of screening, number screened, number infected, sex ratio of those tested and treated). Comparison of baseline programme with two different interventions-(i) increased coverage of primary screening in men and (ii) increased efficacy of partner notification. RESULTS: In 2008-9 screening was estimated to cost about £46.3m in total and £506 per infection treated. Provision for partner notification within the screening programme cost between £9 and £27 per index case, excluding treatment and testing. The model results suggest that increasing male screening coverage from 8% (baseline value) to 24% (to match female coverage) would cost an extra £22.9m and increase the cost per infection treated to £528. In contrast, increasing partner notification efficacy from 0.4 (baseline value) to 0.8 partners per index case would cost an extra £3.3m and would reduce the cost per infection diagnosed to £449. Increasing screening coverage to 24% in men would cost over six times as much as increasing partner notification to 0.8 but only treat twice as many additional infections. CONCLUSIONS: In the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme increasing the effectiveness of partner notification is likely to cost less than increasing male coverage but also improve the ratio of women to men diagnosed. Further evaluation of the cost effectiveness of partner notification and screening is urgently needed. The spreadsheet tool developed in this study can be easily modified for use in other settings to evaluate chlamydia control programmes.