ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the cost-effectiveness of accelerated partner therapy (APT) compared with standard contact tracing for people with sexually transmitted chlamydia infection in the United Kingdom
Design Economic evaluation using a model consisting of two components: a population-based chlamydia transmission component, to estimate the impact of APT on chlamydia prevalence, and an economic component, to estimate the impact of APT on healthcare costs and health outcomes.
Setting United Kingdom
Participants Hypothetical heterosexual population of 50,000 men and 50,000 women aged 16-34 years.
Main Outcome Measures Cost-effectiveness based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and major outcomes averted (MOA), defined as mild pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), severe PID, chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy, tubal factor infertility and epididymitis.
Results For a model population of 50,000 men and 50,000 women and an APT intervention lasting 5 years, the intervention cost of APT (£135,201) is greater than the intervention cost of standard contact tracing (£116,334). When the costs of complications arising from chlamydia are considered, the total cost of APT (£370,657) is lower than standard contact tracing (£379,597). Thus, APT yields a total cost saving of approximately £9000 and leads to 73 fewer major outcomes and 21 fewer QALYs lost. Hence, APT is the dominant PN strategy. APT remained cost-effective across the full range of sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions Based on cost-effectiveness grounds APT is likely to be recommended as an alternative to standard contact tracing for chlamydia infection in the United Kingdom
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0614-20009). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was granted by the UK National Research Ethics Service Committee (London Chelsea Research Ethics Committee reference: 18/LO/0773).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, TR, upon reasonable request.
