Is Accelerated Partner Therapy (APT) a cost-effective alternative to routine patient referral partner notification in the UK? Preliminary cost-consequence analysis of an exploratory trial

Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sexually transmitted infections (Impact Factor: 3.4). 09/2011; 88(1):16-20. DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050176
Source: PubMed


To undertake a cost-consequence analysis to assess two new models of partner notification (PN), known as Accelerated Partner Therapy (APT Hotline and APT Pharmacy), as compared with routine patient referral PN, for sex partners of people with chlamydia, gonorrhoea and non-gonococcal urethritis.
Comparison of costs and outcomes alongside an exploratory trial involving two genitourinary medicine clinics and six community pharmacies. Index patients selected the PN method (APT Hotline, APT Pharmacy or routine PN) for their partners. Clinics and pharmacies recorded cost and resource use data including duration of consultation and uptake of treatment pack. Cost data were collected prospectively for two out of three interventions, and data were synthesised and compared in terms of effectiveness and costs.
Routine PN had the lowest average cost per partner treated (approximately £46) compared with either APT Hotline (approximately £54) or APT Pharmacy (approximately £53) strategies. The cost-consequence analysis revealed that APT strategies were more costly but also more effective at treating partners compared to routine PN.
The hotline strategy costs more than both the alternative PN strategies. If we accept that strategies which identify and treat partners the fastest are likely to be the most effective in reducing reinfection and onward transmission, then APT Hotline appears an effective PN strategy by treating the highest number of partners in the shortest duration. Whether the additional benefit is worth the additional cost cannot be determined in this preliminary analysis. These data will be useful for informing development of future randomised controlled trials of APT.

3 Reads

  • Sexually transmitted infections 02/2012; 88(1):2-3. DOI:10.1136/sextrans-2011-050377 · 3.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. To study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of traditional and new partner notification technologies for curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs). 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. General population and genitourinary medicine clinic attenders. Heterosexual women and men. 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). Population prevalence; index case reinfection; and partners treated per index case. 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. 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. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
    01/2014; 18(2):1-100. DOI:10.3310/hta18020
  • Source

    Sexually Transmitted Infections 04/2014; 90(3):171-171. DOI:10.1136/sextrans-2014-051609 · 3.40 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications