Dataset Information

Antimicrobial resistance point-of-care testing for gonorrhoea treatment regimens: cost-effectiveness and impact on ceftriaxone use of five hypothetical strategies compared with standard care in England sexual health clinics.

ABSTRACT: BackgroundWidespread ceftriaxone antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threatens Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) treatment, with few alternatives available. AMR point-of-care tests (AMR POCT) may enable alternative treatments, including abandoned regimens, sparing ceftriaxone use. We assessed cost-effectiveness of five hypothetical AMR POCT strategies: A-C included a second antibiotic alongside ceftriaxone; and D and E consisted of a single antibiotic alternative, compared with standard care (SC: ceftriaxone and azithromycin).AimAssess costs and effectiveness of AMR POCT strategies that optimise NG treatment and reduce ceftriaxone use.MethodsThe five AMR POCT treatment strategies were compared using a decision tree model simulating 38,870 NG-diagnosed England sexual health clinic (SHC) attendees; A micro-costing approach, representing cost to the SHC (for 2015/16), was employed. Primary outcomes were: total costs; percentage of patients given optimal treatment (regimens curing NG, without AMR); percentage of patients given non-ceftriaxone optimal treatment; cost-effectiveness (cost per optimal treatment gained).ResultsAll strategies cost more than SC. Strategy B (azithromycin and ciprofloxacin (azithromycin preferred); dual therapy) avoided most suboptimal treatments (n = 48) but cost most to implement (GBP 4,093,844 (EUR 5,474,656)). Strategy D (azithromycin AMR POCT; monotherapy) was most cost-effective for both cost per optimal treatments gained (GBP 414.67 (EUR 554.53)) and per ceftriaxone-sparing treatment (GBP 11.29 (EUR 15.09)) but with treatment failures (n = 34) and suboptimal treatments (n = 706).ConclusionsAMR POCT may enable improved antibiotic stewardship, but require net health system investment. A small reduction in test cost would enable monotherapy AMR POCT strategies to be cost-saving.

SUBMITTER: Harding-Esch EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7596918 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antimicrobial resistance point-of-care testing for gonorrhoea treatment regimens: cost-effectiveness and impact on ceftriaxone use of five hypothetical strategies compared with standard care in England sexual health clinics.

Harding-Esch Emma M EM Huntington Susie E SE Harvey Michael J MJ Weston Georgie G Broad Claire E CE Adams Elisabeth J EJ Sadiq S Tariq ST

Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin 20201001 43

BackgroundWidespread ceftriaxone antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threatens <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> (NG) treatment, with few alternatives available. AMR point-of-care tests (AMR POCT) may enable alternative treatments, including abandoned regimens, sparing ceftriaxone use. We assessed cost-effectiveness of five hypothetical AMR POCT strategies: A-C included a second antibiotic alongside ceftriaxone; and D and E consisted of a single antibiotic alternative, compared with standard care (SC: cef ...[more]

PMID: 33124553

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Sexually Transmitted Infections, including Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), continue to be a global health problem. Increased access to point-of-care-tests (POCTs) could help detect infection and lead to appropriate management of cases and contacts, reducing transmission and development of reproductive health sequelae. Yet diagnostics with good clinical effectiveness evidence can fail to be implemented into routine care. Here we assess values beyond clinical effectiveness for molecular CT/NG POCTs implemented across diverse routine practice settings. Methods We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed primary research and conference abstract publications in Medline and Embase reporting on molecular CT/NG POCT implementation in routine clinical practice until 16th February 2021. Results were extracted into EndNote software and initially screened by title and abstract by one author according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles that met the criteria, or were unclear, were included for full-text assessment by all authors. Results were synthesised to assess the tests against guidance criteria and develop a CT/NG POCT value proposition for multiple stakeholders and settings. Findings The systematic review search returned 440 articles; 28 were included overall. The Cepheid CT/NG GeneXpert was the only molecular CT/NG POCT implemented and evaluated in routine practice. It did not fulfil all test guidance criteria, however, studies of test implementation showed multiple values for test use across various healthcare settings and locations. Our value proposition highlights that the majority of values are setting-specific. Sexual health services and outreach services have the least overlap, with General Practice and other non-sexual health specialist services serving as a “bridge” between the two. Conclusions Those wishing to improve CT/NG diagnosis should be supported to identify the values most relevant to their settings and context, and prioritise implementation of tests that are most closely aligned with those values.

Project description:BackgroundGonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea.MethodsG-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16-70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227.FindingsOf 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6·4%, 95% CI -10·4% to -2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4·4%, -8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15·3%, -24·0 to -6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7·8%, -13·6 to -2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group).InterpretationGentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

Antimicrobial resistance point-of-care testing for gonorrhoea treatment regimens: cost-effectiveness and impact on ceftriaxone use of five hypothetical strategies compared with standard care in England sexual health clinics.

Publications

Antimicrobial resistance point-of-care testing for gonorrhoea treatment regimens: cost-effectiveness and impact on ceftriaxone use of five hypothetical strategies compared with standard care in England sexual health clinics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets