» Articles » PMID: 25963907

The Cost-effectiveness of 10 Antenatal Syphilis Screening and Treatment Approaches in Peru, Tanzania, and Zambia

Abstract

Objective: Rapid plasma reagin (RPR) is frequently used to test women for maternal syphilis. Rapid syphilis immunochromatographic strip tests detecting only Treponema pallidum antibodies (single RSTs) or both treponemal and non-treponemal antibodies (dual RSTs) are now available. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of algorithms using these tests to screen pregnant women.

Methods: Observed costs of maternal syphilis screening and treatment using clinic-based RPR and single RSTs in 20 clinics across Peru, Tanzania, and Zambia were used to model the cost-effectiveness of algorithms using combinations of RPR, single, and dual RSTs, and no and mass treatment. Sensitivity analyses determined drivers of key results.

Results: Although this analysis found screening using RPR to be relatively cheap, most (>70%) true cases went untreated. Algorithms using single RSTs were the most cost-effective in all observed settings, followed by dual RSTs, which became the most cost-effective if dual RST costs were halved. Single test algorithms dominated most sequential testing algorithms, although sequential algorithms reduced overtreatment. Mass treatment was relatively cheap and effective in the absence of screening supplies, though treated many uninfected women.

Conclusion: This analysis highlights the advantages of introducing RSTs in three diverse settings. The results should be applicable to other similar settings.

Citing Articles

Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia.

Simangolwa W, Govender K, Mbonigaba J BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):1426.

PMID: 39558344 PMC: 11572362. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11914-z.


Syphilis and pregnancy.

Duarte G, Dos Santos Melli P, Miranda A, Milanez H, Menezes M, Travassos A Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024; 46.

PMID: 39380581 PMC: 11460428. DOI: 10.61622/rbgo/2024FPS09.


Single-test syphilis serology: A case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Zulu E, Herlihy J, Duffy C, Mwananyanda L, Chilengi R, Forman L PLoS One. 2024; 19(5):e0303253.

PMID: 38723103 PMC: 11081208. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303253.


The cost-effectiveness of syphilis screening in pregnant women: a systematic literature review.

Zhang M, Zhang H, Hui X, Qu H, Xia J, Xu F Front Public Health. 2024; 12:1268653.

PMID: 38577277 PMC: 10993388. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1268653.


Ignored and undervalued in public health: a systematic review of health state utility values associated with syphilis infection.

Miao P, Terris-Prestholt F, Fairley C, Tucker J, Wiseman V, Mayaud P Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024; 22(1):17.

PMID: 38350925 PMC: 10863090. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-024-02234-1.


References
1.
Rydzak C, Goldie S . Cost-effectiveness of rapid point-of-care prenatal syphilis screening in sub-Saharan Africa. Sex Transm Dis. 2008; 35(9):775-84. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318176196d. View

2.
Mishra S, Naik B, Venugopal B, Kudur P, Washington R, Becker M . Syphilis screening among female sex workers in Bangalore, India: comparison of point-of-care testing and traditional serological approaches. Sex Transm Infect. 2009; 86(3):193-8. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2009.038778. View

3.
Lee D, Fairley C, Cummings R, Bush M, Read T, Chen M . Men who have sex with men prefer rapid testing for syphilis and may test more frequently using it. Sex Transm Dis. 2010; 37(9):557-8. DOI: 10.1097/olq.0b013e3181d707de. View

4.
Castro A, Mody H, Parab S, Patel M, Kikkert S, Park M . An immunofiltration device for the simultaneous detection of non-treponemal and treponemal antibodies in patients with syphilis. Sex Transm Infect. 2010; 86(7):532-6. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2010.042937. View

5.
Castro A, Esfandiari J, Kumar S, Ashton M, Kikkert S, Park M . Novel point-of-care test for simultaneous detection of nontreponemal and treponemal antibodies in patients with syphilis. J Clin Microbiol. 2010; 48(12):4615-9. PMC: 3008492. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00624-10. View