Sexually transmitted diseases · 2021
Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Express Multisite Gonorrhea Screening Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Earnest Rebecca, Rönn Minttu M, Bellerose Meghan, Menon-Johansson Anatole S, Berruti Andrés A, Chesson Harrell W, Gift Thomas L, Hsu Katherine K, Testa Christian, Zhu Lin, Malyuta Yelena, Menzies Nicolas A, Salomon Joshua A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) experience high rates of gonococcal infection at extragenital (rectal and pharyngeal) anatomic sites, which often are missed without asymptomatic screening and may be important for onward transmission. Implementing an express pathway for asymptomatic MSM seeking routine screening at their clinic may be a cost-effective way to improve extragenital screening by allowing patients to be screened at more anatomic sites through a streamlined, less costly process.
METHODS: We modified an agent-based model of anatomic site-specific gonococcal infection in US MSM to assess the cost-effectiveness of an express screening pathway in which all asymptomatic MSM presenting at their clinic were screened at the urogenital, rectal, and pharyngeal sites but forewent a provider consultation and physical examination and self-collected their own samples. We calculated the cumulative health effects expressed as gonococcal infections and cases averted over 5 years, labor and material costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for express versus traditional scenarios.
RESULTS: The express scenario averted more infections and cases in each intervention year. The increased diagnostic costs of triple-site screening were largely offset by the lowered visit costs of the express pathway and, from the end of year 3 onward, this pathway generated small cost savings. However, in a sensitivity analysis of assumed overhead costs, cost savings under the express scenario disappeared in the majority of simulations once overhead costs exceeded 7% of total annual costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Express screening may be a cost-effective option for improving multisite anatomic screening among US MSM.
METHODS: We modified an agent-based model of anatomic site-specific gonococcal infection in US MSM to assess the cost-effectiveness of an express screening pathway in which all asymptomatic MSM presenting at their clinic were screened at the urogenital, rectal, and pharyngeal sites but forewent a provider consultation and physical examination and self-collected their own samples. We calculated the cumulative health effects expressed as gonococcal infections and cases averted over 5 years, labor and material costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for express versus traditional scenarios.
RESULTS: The express scenario averted more infections and cases in each intervention year. The increased diagnostic costs of triple-site screening were largely offset by the lowered visit costs of the express pathway and, from the end of year 3 onward, this pathway generated small cost savings. However, in a sensitivity analysis of assumed overhead costs, cost savings under the express scenario disappeared in the majority of simulations once overhead costs exceeded 7% of total annual costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Express screening may be a cost-effective option for improving multisite anatomic screening among US MSM.