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

a.sfakia shared this article with you from Inoreader 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 Via Eurosurveillance latest updates Background Widespread 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). Aim Assess costs and effectiveness of AMR POCT strategies that optimise NG treatment and reduce ceftriaxone use. Methods The 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). Results All 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). Conclusions AMR 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. View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.