Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020
The Potential Population-Level Impact of Different Gonorrhea Screening Strategies in Baltimore and San Francisco: An Exploratory Mathematical Modeling Analysis.
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.
Rönn Minttu M, Testa Christian, Tuite Ashleigh R, Chesson Harrell W, Gift Thomas L, Schumacher Christina, Williford Sarah L, Zhu Lin, Bellerose Meghan, Earnest Rebecca, Malyuta Yelena, Hsu Katherine K, Salomon Joshua A, Menzies Nicolas A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Baltimore and San Francisco represent high burden areas for gonorrhea in the United States. We explored different gonorrhea screening strategies and their comparative impact in the 2 cities.
METHODS: We used a compartmental transmission model of gonorrhea stratified by sex, sexual orientation, age, and race/ethnicity, calibrated to city-level surveillance data for 2010 to 2017. We analyzed the benefits of 5-year interventions which improved retention in care cascade or increased screening from current levels. We also examined a 1-year outreach screening intervention of high-activity populations.
RESULTS: In Baltimore, annual screening of population aged 15 to 24 years was the most efficient of the 5-year interventions with 17.9 additional screening tests (95% credible interval [CrI], 11.8-31.4) needed per infection averted while twice annual screening of the same population averted the most infections (5.4%; 95% CrI, 3.1-8.2%) overall with 25.3 (95% CrI, 19.4-33.4) tests per infection averted. In San Francisco, quarter-annual screening of all men who have sex with men was the most efficient with 16.2 additional (95% CrI, 12.5-44.5) tests needed per infection averted, and it also averted the most infections (10.8%; 95% CrI, 1.2-17.8%). Interventions that reduce loss to follow-up after diagnosis improved outcomes. Depending on the ability of a short-term outreach screening to screen populations at higher acquisition risk, such interventions can offer efficient ways to expand screening coverage.
CONCLUSIONS: Data on gonorrhea prevalence distribution and time trends locally would improve the analyses. More focused intervention strategies could increase the impact and efficiency of screening interventions.
METHODS: We used a compartmental transmission model of gonorrhea stratified by sex, sexual orientation, age, and race/ethnicity, calibrated to city-level surveillance data for 2010 to 2017. We analyzed the benefits of 5-year interventions which improved retention in care cascade or increased screening from current levels. We also examined a 1-year outreach screening intervention of high-activity populations.
RESULTS: In Baltimore, annual screening of population aged 15 to 24 years was the most efficient of the 5-year interventions with 17.9 additional screening tests (95% credible interval [CrI], 11.8-31.4) needed per infection averted while twice annual screening of the same population averted the most infections (5.4%; 95% CrI, 3.1-8.2%) overall with 25.3 (95% CrI, 19.4-33.4) tests per infection averted. In San Francisco, quarter-annual screening of all men who have sex with men was the most efficient with 16.2 additional (95% CrI, 12.5-44.5) tests needed per infection averted, and it also averted the most infections (10.8%; 95% CrI, 1.2-17.8%). Interventions that reduce loss to follow-up after diagnosis improved outcomes. Depending on the ability of a short-term outreach screening to screen populations at higher acquisition risk, such interventions can offer efficient ways to expand screening coverage.
CONCLUSIONS: Data on gonorrhea prevalence distribution and time trends locally would improve the analyses. More focused intervention strategies could increase the impact and efficiency of screening interventions.