Cost & benefits of introducing a point-of-care chlamydia test (V.1)
Research type
Research Study
Full title
The development of a cost effectiveness tool to assess the costs and benefits of introducing a rapid point-of-care test for the detection of genital chlamydia.
IRAS ID
116001
Contact name
Helen Lee
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Diagnostics for the Real World (Europe) Ltd.
Research summary
The project’s main aim is to develop a tool to model the cost-effectiveness and healthcare consequences of introducing a point-of-care (POC) diagnostic test for chlamydia.
POC tests provide rapid results to physicians while the patients are on site, thus reduce time between testing and treatment of patients, as well as increasing treatment rates. However, introducing POC diagnostics can be challenging as decision-makers frequently lack access to evidence regarding the impact of POC testing on patient outcome and health economics. This study will generate a cost effectiveness tool that will provide a model that can help other companies design studies to enable better assessment of the impact of introducing POC tests.
Standard tests for diagnosing chlamydia (nucleic acid amplification tests) are accurate but expensive. They can take hours or days to complete, which results in a delay in treatment of the individual and their partner(s) and loss to follow up. We have developed a Chlamydia Rapid Test (CRT) that can be easily done in the clinic and provides results within 30 minutes.
To develop the tool, data about the use of the CRT in routine practice are needed. We will collect data from two types of settings: a young people’s clinic and specialist sexual-health clinics. The clinical part of the study will run for 15 months. Female patients will be asked to provide vaginal swabs for routine and CRT testing and to complete questionnaires about their sexual behaviour.
We will compare results from routine-testing and the CRT to determine: (i) costs to the healthcare provider; (ii) time between test and treatment: (iii) loss to follow-up; and (iv) time to partner notification and numbers of partners successfully treated. We will use these data to develop a cost-effectiveness tool to assess the health economics and public health impact of introducing a POC test.
REC name
London - Bromley Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
13/LO/1166
Date of REC Opinion
3 Oct 2013
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion