W7 Expedited Partner Therapy for Management of Certain Sexually Transmitted Infections Hogben
1. Expedited Partner Therapy: Background & Current Status Matthew Hogben PhD Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (404) 639-1833 [email_address] May 26, 2010 The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2.
3. PN in the big picture CAN YOU GET INFECTED PEOPLE TREATED AT A RATE FASTER THAN THE RATE AT WHICH THEY INFECT OTHERS? Infected Patient Partner notification Partner treated Maybe!
4. Networks of exposure and transmission (Artist’s conception) It’s OK, I’m not infected. . I told the guy sitting down already. I got tested and treated.
16. Prevention Impact framework Effective level of coverage Contribution of groups to population health outcome Efficacy or effectiveness (in targeted groups) PREVENTION IMPACT = X X Abridged/adapted from: Aral et al. Behavioral Interventions 2007; St. Louis & Holmes Sexually Transmitted Diseases (3 rd ed.) . 1999
17. Achieving impact with EPT COVERAGE CONTRIBUTION Partners have 20% to 75% positivity (program data) EFFICACY Tx rate: 20% To 100% increase Reinfection: 20% to 50% decrease X X Key Issue
23. Evolving Landscape of EPT: Legal Status Summary EPT is Potentially Allowable EPT is Likely Prohibited EPT is Permissible Legislation Pending CA OR WA NV NM UT AZ WY CO NB KS MO AR OK FL GA AL MS LA TX WI IA MN ID MT ND SD NC VA WV KY TN OH MI IN IL VT AK HI ME NY PA RI MA NJ CT NH SC DE DC MD ( Baltimore only) CA OR WA NV NM UT AZ WY CO NB KS MO AR OK FL GA AL MS LA TX WI IA MN ID MT ND SD NC VA WV KY TN OH MI IN IL VT AK HI ME NY PA RI MA NJ CT NH SC DE DC MD 2006 2010
24.
25.
26.
27. All together now… Coverage Something for everyone Contribution STD clinic Other public sector Private sector Intervention Mix Along Continuum of Services Efficacy Screening/Testing Patient Treatment Partner Notification & Treatment Counseling and other Interventions Follow-up Care X X
This is just a slide to show that the issues around workload and burden of disease are international and date back at least 40 years! This problem illustrates the need to be able to use an alternative to provider referral in many instances.
Relative burden of syphilis, GC, CT. Even assuming resources permitted some DIS-based inquiry into a proportion of GC cases (note the NY state work on core areas and the work on proportion interviewed as a predictor of subsequent incidence), there remains a large burden of infection.
A reference to current CDC recommendations and a front page note on EPT and the need for patient-mediated notification and referral strategies.
The point of this slide is to embed EPT into the context of existing partner services. EPT is not a categorically different approach to partner treatment; it is an enhancement of existing approaches. Grasping this point helps drive programmatic changes to guide the use of EPT in its various forms.
This slide is actually more important than it might look at first glance. Reinfection is usually the outcome that we treat as most important. In partner notification, however, the key rationales are generally built around partner treatment – does anyone track index reinfection as a routine indicator of partner services success? It’s certainly not common. So examining the effect of EPT upon treatment rates is really just about as important as index patient reinfection. Looking at other behaviors lets us know something about collateral benefits and harms – unintended consequences.
This and the following slide are from an independent meta-analysis. Note they included Kissinger’s (1998) study in which a provider in a practice was randomized to discuss PDPT with female patients. They also include the trich RCT (Kissinger 2006), so the overall effect, RR = 0.73, incorporates an extra infection and an arguably non-RCT. If those two studies are excluded, the effect is almost identical.
The Nuwaha RCT may have an exaggerated effect size because the control arm was based on clinical attendance and the trial arm was based around index report. Note also the smaller effect for trich (Kissinger 2006).
Summary of the guidance in the 2006 report.
Programs should look for specific numbers in treatment improvements and partner positivity based on their own data (I apologize if this seems like a lecture or, worse, a familiar lecture!). Once programs have those estimates, however, they can work out the amount of coverage – measured as uptake? – that would provide a certain level of prevention impact.
This is the study in which patients and physicians discussed PDPT. Note the effect size is bigger than the RCT estimates for CT. But what has happened to coverage? What this study adds in value is the balancing and the overlap between efficacy and coverage measurements.
These are a mix of the most commonly cited issues.
Peer to peer technical assistance…
The paper underlying these recommendations is Hodge et al. (2008) Am J Public Health. Do check the website at www.cdc.gov/std/ept.
In terms of basic availability, CDC and other efforts have been highly effective. Given the 23 states include California, Texas and New York, this almost certainly amounts to >50% of the US population.
Probably outdated by now, so, again check the website!
Early data from implementation in STD clinics in Baltimore. The 2010 STD Prevention conference in Atlanta in March should reveal an update to these data.
A USPSTF recommendation might ease cost issues through enabling reimbursement. Certainly CDC’s priority is to get other federal agencies aligned with keeping/making EPT cost-feasible everywhere it is legal practice.
One intervention at a time does look stupid when you are considering moving furniture.
So we solve it all with a bigger diagram! Well, it’s a start. This is all about intervention along a continuum of services (or you could define the continuum by needs) in a way that captures the real eligible population. And then you enable policies that give 100% coverage with respect to service delivery and aim for a level of coverage measured by service uptake that results in meaningful prevention impact. Job well done and off you ride into the sunset.
![Expedited Partner Therapy: Background & Current Status Matthew Hogben PhD Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (404) 639-1833 [email_address] May 26, 2010 The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/hogben-100521145152-phpapp02/85/W7-Expedited-Partner-Therapy-for-Management-of-Certain-Sexually-Transmitted-Infections-Hogben-1-320.jpg)
![Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()