RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing (POCT) assays for chlamydia are being developed. Their potential impact on the burden of chlamydial infection in the United States, in light of suboptimal screening coverage, remains unclear. METHODS: Using a transmission model calibrated to data in the United States, we estimated the impact of POCT on chlamydia prevalence, incidence, and chlamydia-attributable pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) incidence, assuming status quo (Analysis 1) and improved (Analysis 2) screening frequencies. We tested the robustness of results to changes in POCT sensitivity, the proportion of patients getting treated immediately, the baseline proportion lost to follow-up (LTFU), and the average treatment delay. RESULTS: In Analysis 1, high POCT sensitivity was needed to reduce the chlamydia-associated burden. With a POCT sensitivity of 90%, reductions from the baseline burden only occurred in scenarios in which over 60% of the screened individuals would get immediate treatment and the baseline LTFU proportion was 20%. With a POCT sensitivity of 99% (baseline LTFU 10%, 2-week treatment delay), if everyone were treated immediately, the prevalence reduction was estimated at 5.7% (95% credible interval [CrI] 3.9-8.2%). If only 30% of tested persons would wait for results, the prevalence reduction was only 1.6% (95% CrI 1.1-2.3). POCT with 99% sensitivity could avert up to 12 700 (95% CrI 5000-22 200) PID cases per year, if 100% were treated immediately (baseline LTFU 20% and 3-week treatment delay). In Analysis 2, when POCT was coupled with increasing screening coverage, reductions in the chlamydia burden could be realized with a POCT sensitivity of 90%. CONCLUSIONS: POCT could improve chlamydia prevention efforts if test performance characteristics are significantly improved over currently available options.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Chlamydia , Enfermedad Inflamatoria Pélvica , Infecciones por Chlamydia/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Chlamydia/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Chlamydia/epidemiología , Chlamydia trachomatis , Femenino , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo , Pruebas en el Punto de Atención , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods white paper was to outline approaches to conducting systematic reviews of complex multicomponent health care interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a literature scan and conducted semistructured interviews with international experts who conduct research or systematic reviews of complex multicomponent interventions (CMCIs) or organizational leaders who implement CMCIs in health care. RESULTS: Challenges identified include lack of consistent terminology for such interventions (eg, complex, multicomponent, multidimensional, multifactorial); a wide range of approaches used to frame the review, from grouping interventions by common features to using more theoretical approaches; decisions regarding whether and how to quantitatively analyze the interventions, from holistic to individual component analytic approaches; and incomplete and inconsistent reporting of elements critical to understanding the success and impact of multicomponent interventions, such as methods used for implementation the context in which interventions are implemented. CONCLUSION: We provide a framework for the spectrum of conceptual and analytic approaches to synthesizing studies of multicomponent interventions and an initial list of critical reporting elements for such studies. This information is intended to help systematic reviewers understand the options and tradeoffs available for such reviews.