Back

Cost-effectiveness of the Strategies for Surveillance of Antimicrobial-resistant Gonorrhea in the US: a Modelling Study

Prakhova, S.

2024-07-29 health economics
10.1101/2024.07.29.24311166 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) is a sentinel surveillance system to monitor the spread of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) gonorrhea. Under GISP surveillance strategy, urethral isolates are utilized for monitoring the spread of the resistance and the obtained estimates are used for informing the gonorrhea treatment guidelines. In 2017, the enhanced Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (eGISP) was established which also includes the non-urethral isolates. Using eGISP estimates for informing the gonorrhea treatment guidelines is an alternative surveillance strategy that can be used. MethodsWe utilized our previously developed continuous-time agent-based model of gonorrhea transmission among the US men who have sex with men (MSM) population and calculated the total number of discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and total discounted costs over 25 years under GISP and eGISP surveillance strategy. We also evaluated cost-effectiveness of both surveillance strategies. ResultsUnder GISP surveillance strategy, $2.9M (95% uncertainty interval: $23,131, $9.4M) were saved and 31.3 (0, 134.9) QALYs were gained in the simulated cohort of 10,000 US MSM over 25 years compared to no surveillance. Performing eGISP surveillance strategy instead would result in additional $57,449 (-$100,914, $221,663) saved and 0.59 (-0.79, 2.5) QALYs gained. ConclusionThe current GISP surveillance strategy significantly reduces the costs and increases the health benefits compared to no surveillance. However, switching from the current strategy to eGISP strategy is cost saving and should be considered in order to improve the population health and reduce the financial burden of gonorrhea.

Published in Venereology · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.5%
3
Sexually Transmitted Infections
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
4
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
5
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.8%
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
8
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 50%
2.1%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
11
AIDS
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
12
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.9%
13
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
14
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
15
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
20
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
22
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.8%
24
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
26
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
27
Journal of Global Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%