• Kwame Owusu-Edusei, Thomas A Peterman, and Ronald C Ballard.
• Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road MS E-80, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. kowusuedusei@cdc.gov
• Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Jan 1; 38 (1): 1-7.

BackgroundThe introduction of automated treponemal enzyme immunoassays and chemiluminescence assays (EIA/CA) tests has led some laboratories in the United States to use new syphilis screening algorithms that start with a treponemal test. We compared the economic and health outcomes of this new algorithm with the standard algorithm from the perspective of the United States health system.MethodsWe used a cohort decision analysis to estimate the expected costs and effects (including follow-ups and overtreatment) of the 2 algorithms from a health-care system perspective. In the standard algorithm, rapid plasma reagin (RPR) is followed (if reactive) by EIA/CA (Nontreponemal-First). In the new algorithm, EIA/CA is followed (if reactive) by RPR. If the RPR is negative, Treponema pallidum passive particle agglutination assay (TP-PA) test is used (Treponemal-First).ResultsFor a cohort of 200,000 individuals (1000 current infections and 10,000 previous infections), the net costs were $1.6 m (Treponemal-First) and $1.4 m (Nontreponemal-First). The Treponemal-First option treated 118 more cases (986 vs. 868) but resulted in a substantially higher number of follow-ups (11,450 vs. 3756) and overtreatment (964 vs. 38). Treating the additional 118 cases might prevent 1 case of tertiary syphilis. The estimated cost-effectiveness ratios were $1671 (Treponemal-First) and $1621 (Nontreponemal-First) per case treated. The overtreatment was a function of the specificity of the EIA/CA and the lack of independence of EIA/CA and TP-PA.ConclusionThe Treponemal-First option costs slightly more and results in more unnecessary treatment.

25 keywords...

hide…