Accelerated partner therapy contact tracing for people with chlamydia (LUSTRUM): a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial.


Journal

The Lancet. Public health
ISSN: 2468-2667
Titre abrégé: Lancet Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101699003

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2022
Historique:
received: 13 04 2022
revised: 26 07 2022
accepted: 09 08 2022
entrez: 1 10 2022
pubmed: 2 10 2022
medline: 5 10 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Accelerated partner therapy has shown promise in improving contact tracing. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of accelerated partner therapy in addition to usual contact tracing compared with usual practice alone in heterosexual people with chlamydia, using a biological primary outcome measure. We did a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial in 17 sexual health clinics (clusters) across England and Scotland. Participants were heterosexual people aged 16 years or older with a positive Chlamydia trachomatis test result, or a clinical diagnosis of conditions for which presumptive chlamydia treatment and contact tracing are initially provided, and their sexual partners. We allocated phase order for clinics through random permutation within strata. In the control phase, participants received usual care (health-care professional advised the index patient to tell their sexual partner[s] to attend clinic for sexually transmitted infection screening and treatment). In the intervention phase, participants received usual care plus an offer of accelerated partner therapy (health-care professional assessed sexual partner[s] by telephone, then sent or gave the index patient antibiotics and sexually transmitted infection self-sampling kits for their sexual partner[s]). Each phase lasted 6 months, with a 2-week washout at crossover. The primary outcome was the proportion of index patients with a positive C trachomatis test result at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation. Secondary outcomes included proportions and types of sexual partners treated. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 15996256. Between Oct 24, 2018, and Nov 17, 2019, 1536 patients were enrolled in the intervention phase and 1724 were enrolled in the control phase. All clinics completed both phases. In total, 4807 sexual partners were reported, of whom 1636 (34%) were steady established partners. Overall, 293 (19%) of 1536 index patients chose accelerated partner therapy for a total of 305 partners, of whom 248 (81%) accepted. 666 (43%) of 1536 index patients in the intervention phase and 800 (46%) of 1724 in the control phase were tested for C trachomatis at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation; 31 (4·7%) in the intervention phase and 53 (6·6%) in the control phase had a positive C trachomatis test result (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·41 to 1·04]; p=0·071; marginal absolute difference -2·2% [95% CI -4·7 to 0·3]). Among index patients with treatment status recorded, 775 (88·0%) of 881 patients in the intervention phase and 760 (84·6%) of 898 in the control phase had at least one treated sexual partner at 2-4 weeks after contact tracing consultation (adjusted OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·96 to 1·68]; p=0·10; marginal absolute difference 2·7% [95% CI -0·5 to 6·0]). No clinically significant harms were reported. Although the evidence that the intervention reduces repeat infection was not conclusive, the trial results suggest that accelerated partner therapy can be safely offered as a contact tracing option and is also likely to be cost saving. Future research should find ways to increase uptake of accelerated partner therapy and develop alternative interventions for one-off sexual partners. National Institute for Health Research.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Accelerated partner therapy has shown promise in improving contact tracing. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of accelerated partner therapy in addition to usual contact tracing compared with usual practice alone in heterosexual people with chlamydia, using a biological primary outcome measure.
METHODS
We did a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial in 17 sexual health clinics (clusters) across England and Scotland. Participants were heterosexual people aged 16 years or older with a positive Chlamydia trachomatis test result, or a clinical diagnosis of conditions for which presumptive chlamydia treatment and contact tracing are initially provided, and their sexual partners. We allocated phase order for clinics through random permutation within strata. In the control phase, participants received usual care (health-care professional advised the index patient to tell their sexual partner[s] to attend clinic for sexually transmitted infection screening and treatment). In the intervention phase, participants received usual care plus an offer of accelerated partner therapy (health-care professional assessed sexual partner[s] by telephone, then sent or gave the index patient antibiotics and sexually transmitted infection self-sampling kits for their sexual partner[s]). Each phase lasted 6 months, with a 2-week washout at crossover. The primary outcome was the proportion of index patients with a positive C trachomatis test result at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation. Secondary outcomes included proportions and types of sexual partners treated. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 15996256.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 24, 2018, and Nov 17, 2019, 1536 patients were enrolled in the intervention phase and 1724 were enrolled in the control phase. All clinics completed both phases. In total, 4807 sexual partners were reported, of whom 1636 (34%) were steady established partners. Overall, 293 (19%) of 1536 index patients chose accelerated partner therapy for a total of 305 partners, of whom 248 (81%) accepted. 666 (43%) of 1536 index patients in the intervention phase and 800 (46%) of 1724 in the control phase were tested for C trachomatis at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation; 31 (4·7%) in the intervention phase and 53 (6·6%) in the control phase had a positive C trachomatis test result (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·41 to 1·04]; p=0·071; marginal absolute difference -2·2% [95% CI -4·7 to 0·3]). Among index patients with treatment status recorded, 775 (88·0%) of 881 patients in the intervention phase and 760 (84·6%) of 898 in the control phase had at least one treated sexual partner at 2-4 weeks after contact tracing consultation (adjusted OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·96 to 1·68]; p=0·10; marginal absolute difference 2·7% [95% CI -0·5 to 6·0]). No clinically significant harms were reported.
INTERPRETATION
Although the evidence that the intervention reduces repeat infection was not conclusive, the trial results suggest that accelerated partner therapy can be safely offered as a contact tracing option and is also likely to be cost saving. Future research should find ways to increase uptake of accelerated partner therapy and develop alternative interventions for one-off sexual partners.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36182235
pii: S2468-2667(22)00204-3
doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00204-3
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anti-Bacterial Agents 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e853-e865

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
Pays : United Kingdom

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of interests CSE reports honorarium for lectures at the 2020 Joint Australasian HIV & AIDS and Sexual Health Conferences; and is a Trustee to the Board of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH). JS reports BASHH 2022, 2021, and 2020 annual conference registration covered by BASHH, as an invited speaker (no honoraria received), with registration (all years) and accommodation (2022) paid by BASHH; attendance at the International Society STD Research (ISSTDR) conference 2021 as an invited speaker (no honoraria received), with registration paid by ISSTDR; is a BASHH National Audit Group committee member; and is a BASHH Bacterial STI special interest group committee member. RN reports sexual health and blood-borne virus clinical support from the Scottish Government; and is a non-executive Director on the Board of Public Health Scotland. JAC reports that BASHH has supported implementation work in other institutions within the LUSTRUM consortium, aiming to embed partnership type specifications into audits of partner notification, including work preparatory to a publication in Eurosurveillance. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Auteurs

Claudia S Estcourt (CS)

School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK; Sandyford Sexual Health Services, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK. Electronic address: claudia.estcourt@gcu.ac.uk.

Oliver Stirrup (O)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Andrew Copas (A)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Nicola Low (N)

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Fiona Mapp (F)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

John Saunders (J)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK; UKHSA Health Protection Services, Public Health England, London, UK.

Catherine H Mercer (CH)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Paul Flowers (P)

School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.

Tracy Roberts (T)

Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Alison R Howarth (AR)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Melvina Woode Owusu (MW)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Merle Symonds (M)

Health Promotion and Digital Services, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Crawley Hospital, Crawley, UK.

Rak Nandwani (R)

College of Medical, Veterinary, and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Chidubem Ogwulu (C)

Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Susannah Brice (S)

All East Sexual Health, Barts Health NHS Trust, The Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

Anne M Johnson (AM)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Christian L Althaus (CL)

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Eleanor Williams (E)

Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Alex Comer-Schwartz (A)

Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Anna Tostevin (A)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Jackie A Cassell (JA)

Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH