» Articles » PMID: 31504314

Potential for Point-of-Care Tests to Reduce Chlamydia-associated Burden in the United States: A Mathematical Modeling Analysis

Overview
Journal Clin Infect Dis
Date 2019 Sep 11
PMID 31504314
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) assays for chlamydia are being developed. Their potential impact on the burden of chlamydial infection in the United States, in light of suboptimal screening coverage, remains unclear.

Methods: Using a transmission model calibrated to data in the United States, we estimated the impact of POCT on chlamydia prevalence, incidence, and chlamydia-attributable pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) incidence, assuming status quo (Analysis 1) and improved (Analysis 2) screening frequencies. We tested the robustness of results to changes in POCT sensitivity, the proportion of patients getting treated immediately, the baseline proportion lost to follow-up (LTFU), and the average treatment delay.

Results: In Analysis 1, high POCT sensitivity was needed to reduce the chlamydia-associated burden. With a POCT sensitivity of 90%, reductions from the baseline burden only occurred in scenarios in which over 60% of the screened individuals would get immediate treatment and the baseline LTFU proportion was 20%. With a POCT sensitivity of 99% (baseline LTFU 10%, 2-week treatment delay), if everyone were treated immediately, the prevalence reduction was estimated at 5.7% (95% credible interval [CrI] 3.9-8.2%). If only 30% of tested persons would wait for results, the prevalence reduction was only 1.6% (95% CrI 1.1-2.3). POCT with 99% sensitivity could avert up to 12 700 (95% CrI 5000-22 200) PID cases per year, if 100% were treated immediately (baseline LTFU 20% and 3-week treatment delay). In Analysis 2, when POCT was coupled with increasing screening coverage, reductions in the chlamydia burden could be realized with a POCT sensitivity of 90%.

Conclusions: POCT could improve chlamydia prevention efforts if test performance characteristics are significantly improved over currently available options.

Citing Articles

Heterogeneity in practitioner-reported barriers to use, cost considerations and priorities for point of care sexually transmitted infection tests on surveys across seven years.

Tuddenham S, Hsieh Y, Manabe Y, Gaydos C, Rompalo A Int J STD AIDS. 2023; 34(14):1012-1017.

PMID: 37548593 PMC: 11156494. DOI: 10.1177/09564624231194375.


Controversies and evidence on Chlamydia testing and treatment in asymptomatic women and men who have sex with men: a narrative review.

Dukers-Muijrers N, Evers Y, Hoebe C, Wolffs P, de Vries H, Hoenderboom B BMC Infect Dis. 2022; 22(1):255.

PMID: 35287617 PMC: 8922931. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07171-2.


What can be learnt from a qualitative evaluation of implementing a rapid sexual health testing, diagnosis and treatment service?.

Lorenc A, Brangan E, Kesten J, Horner P, Clarke M, Crofts M BMJ Open. 2021; 11(10):e050109.

PMID: 34686552 PMC: 8543645. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050109.


A profile of the binx health ® molecular point-of-care test for chlamydia and gonorrhea in women and men.

Van Der Pol B, Gaydos C Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2021; 21(9):861-868.

PMID: 34225553 PMC: 9126586. DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2021.1952074.


Development and Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Test in a Low-Resource Setting with High Rates of Chlamydia trachomatis Urogenital Infections in Fiji.

Dean D, Swaminathan S, Kama M, Goemans S, Faktaufon D, Alnabelseya N J Clin Microbiol. 2021; 59(7):e0018221.

PMID: 33910964 PMC: 8218753. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00182-21.


References
1.
Yoon J, Elder H, Hawrusik R, Klevens R, Roosevelt K, Hsu K . Does Nonmetropolitan Residence Impact Timely Chlamydia Treatment in Massachusetts?. Sex Transm Dis. 2018; 45(8):e52-e56. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000828. View

2.
Qin J, Diniz C, Coleman J . Pharmacy-level barriers to implementing expedited partner therapy in Baltimore, Maryland. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218(5):504.e1-504.e6. PMC: 5916341. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.036. View

3.
Learner E, Torrone E, Fine J, Pence B, Powers K, Miller W . Chlamydia Prevalence Trends Among Women and Men Entering the National Job Training Program From 1990 Through 2012. Sex Transm Dis. 2018; 45(8):554-559. PMC: 6043365. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000798. View

4.
Davies B, Turner K, Benfield T, Frolund M, Andersen B, Westh H . Pelvic inflammatory disease risk following negative results from chlamydia nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) versus non-NAATs in Denmark: A retrospective cohort. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(1):e1002483. PMC: 5749678. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002483. View

5.
Geisler W, Wang C, Morrison S, Black C, Bandea C, Hook 3rd E . The natural history of untreated Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the interval between screening and returning for treatment. Sex Transm Dis. 2007; 35(2):119-23. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318151497d. View