The acceptability and cost of a home-based chlamydia retesting strategy: findings from the REACT randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia retesting three months after treatment is recommended to detect reinfections, but retesting rates are typically low. The REACT (retest after Chlamydia trachomatis) randomised trial demonstrated that home-based retesting using postal home-collection kits and SMS reminders, resulted in substantial improvements in retesting rates in women, heterosexual men and men who have sex with men (MSM), with detection of more repeat positive tests compared with SMS reminder alone. In the context of this trial, the acceptability of the home-based strategy was evaluated and the costs of the two strategies were compared. METHODS: REACT participants (200 women, 200 heterosexual men, 200 MSM) were asked to complete an online survey that included home-testing acceptability and preferred methods of retesting. The demographics, sexual behaviour and acceptability of home collection were compared between those preferring home-testing versus clinic-based retesting or no preference, using a chi-square test. The costs to the health system of the clinic-based and home retesting strategies and the cost per infection for each were also compared. RESULTS: Overall 445/600 (74 %) participants completed the survey; 236/445 from the home-testing arm, and 141 of these (60 %) retested at home. The majority of home arm retesters were comfortable having the kit posted to their home (86 %); found it easy to follow the instructions and collect the specimens (96 %); were confident they had collected the specimens correctly (90 %); and reported no problems (70 %). Most (65 %) preferred home retesting, 21 % had no preference and 14 % preferred clinic retesting. Comparing those with a preference for home testing to those who didn't, there were significant differences in being comfortable having a kit sent to their home (p = 0.045); not having been diagnosed with chlamydia previously (p = 0.030); and living with friends (p = 0.034). The overall cost for the home retest pathway was $154 (AUD), compared to $169 for the clinic-based retesting pathway and the cost per repeat infection detected was $1409 vs $3133. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals initially diagnosed with chlamydia in a sexual health clinic setting, home-based retesting was shown to be highly acceptable, preferred by most participants, and cost-efficient. However some clients preferred clinic-based testing, often due to confidentiality concerns in their home environment. Both options should be provided to maximise retesting rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on September 9, 2011: ACTRN12611000968976.

Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the cost-effectiveness of screening all pregnant women aged 16-25 years for chlamydia compared with selective screening or no screening. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness based on a decision model. SETTING: Antenatal clinics in Australia. SAMPLE: Pregnant women, aged 16-25 years. METHODS: Using clinical data from a previous study, and outcomes data from the literature, we modelled the short-term perinatal (12-month time horizon) incremental direct costs and outcomes from a government (as the primary third-party funder) perspective for chlamydia screening. Costs were derived from the Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and average cost-weights reported for hospitalisations classified according to the Australian refined diagnosis-related groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct costs of screening and managing chlamydia complications, number of chlamydia cases detected and treated, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated and subjected to sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Assuming a chlamydia prevalence rate of 3%, screening all antenatal women aged 16-25 years at their first antenatal visit compared with no screening was $34,931 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Screening all women could result in cost savings when chlamydia prevalence was higher than 11%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were most sensitive to the assumed prevalence of chlamydia, the probability of pelvic inflammatory disease, the utility weight of a positive chlamydia test and the cost of the chlamydia test and doctor's appointment. CONCLUSION: From an Australian government perspective, chlamydia screening of all women aged 16-25 years old during one antenatal visit was likely to be cost-effective compared with no screening or selective screening, especially with increasing chlamydia prevalence. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Chlamydia screening for all pregnant women aged 16-25 years during an antenatal visit is cost effective.

Acceptability of digital anal cancer screening examinations in HIV-positive homosexual men.

OBJECTIVES: Anal cancer is more common in HIV-positive homosexual men than in HIV-negative homosexual men and the general population. Earlier diagnosis leads to improved prognosis. We aimed to determine if regular anal inspection and digital examination of asymptomatic homosexual men attending for routine HIV care were acceptable and to record the rate of referral for diagnosis of potentially malignant anal lesions. METHODS: We offered anal examinations to consecutive homosexual men with HIV infection aged ≥ 35 years during their routine HIV clinic visits, aiming to complete three examinations over a 12-month period. Acceptability questionnaires were completed at baseline and after each examination and doctors recorded examination findings and all resulting interventions. Hospital referral outcomes were collected and interventions were costed using the Australian Medical Benefits Schedule. RESULTS: Of 142 men who were offered enrolment in the study, 102 [72%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 64-79%] participated. Following the initial anal examinations, four men were referred to surgeons. Cancer was excluded in three men (3%; 95% CI 1-8%) and one was diagnosed with anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Three men had anoscopy performed at the time and two were referred for colonoscopy. Ninety-eight per cent (95% CI 93-100%) of respondents said that they would probably have the examination next time. The intervention was estimated to cost approximately Australian $16 per examination. CONCLUSIONS: Regular anal digital examinations are an acceptable and inexpensive addition to the routine care of homosexual men with HIV infection.

Legislation requiring monthly testing of sex workers with low rates of sexually transmitted infections restricts access to services for higher-risk individuals.

OBJECTIVES: In Victoria, Australia, legislation requires sex workers to undergo monthly testing for gonorrhoea, chlamydia and trichomonas, and 3-monthly for HIV and syphilis, despite extremely low rates of sexually transmitted infections (STI) in female sex workers (FSW). The aim of this study was to quantify the resources and opportunities lost from this screening. METHODS: Computerised medical records of patients attending the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC) between October 2005 and October 2008 were reviewed. RESULTS: Consultations with FSW accounted for 15.1% of total consultation time (5722 of 37,670 h) and of these, 2896 h (7.7%) were used for monthly consultations involving testing for gonorrhoea, chlamydia and trichomonas, but no serology (termed swab-only testing). Only 133 (3.2%) of the 4208 cases of STI (defined as gonorrhoea, chlamydia, trichomonas, early syphilis, mycoplasma genitalium or HIV) that were detected at MSHC during the study period were among FSW who underwent swab-only testing. 1726 (41%) STI were detected among men who have sex with men (MSM). The STI detected per 100 h of consultation time was (fourfold) higher for MSM (19) than for FSW (4). If FSW were tested only every 3 months for gonorrhoea, chlamydia, trichomonas, syphilis and HIV the 2896 h spent on monthly swab-only testing would have been available for higher-risk clients CONCLUSION: The current legislation requiring monthly STI testing is compromising the access for higher-risk individuals to sexual health. Other countries contemplating mandatory testing need to consider the influence that the frequency of testing has on access to sexual health services for high-risk groups.

Chlamydia testing and notification in Australia: more money, more tests.

BACKGROUND: To examine the associations between chlamydia testing and notification and age, sex, socioeconomic status and access to services for area of residence for the Australian state of Victoria in 2004. METHODS: Data on 71 295 tests and 7006 notifications for chlamydia were obtained by age, gender and area of residence. Each area of residence was assigned to a population-weighted quartile of socioeconomic advantage and was scored for access to services. Generalised linear modelling was used to analyse relationships between the variables. RESULTS: The odds of being tested for and notified with chlamydia increased by 27% (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.27) and 10% (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.13), respectively, and the odds of a test being positive decreased by 13% (OR 0.87, CI 0.85 to 0.89) for each quartile increase in socioeconomic advantage, when adjusted for access to services. The highest proportion of any subgroup population tested was 7.8% in women aged 20-24 years living in the most advantaged quartile. Men and women over 25 years in advantaged areas receive more testing than men and women aged 20-24 years in disadvantaged areas. CONCLUSION: Access to chlamydia testing is inequitable and favours more advantaged areas. Testing in the age groups at most risk, women aged between 20 and 24 years, was low even in those living in the most advantaged quartile. If Australia is to implement a chlamydia screening programme, education should emphasise the appropriate age group to screen.