You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Health services research
Short report
Impact of expedited partner therapy (EPT) implementation on chlamydia incidence in the USA
  1. Okeoma Mmeje1,2,
  2. Sarah Wallett3,
  3. Giselle Kolenic1,
  4. Jason Bell1
  1. 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  2. 2 Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  3. 3 Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Okeoma Mmeje, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, L4100 Women's Hospital, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5276, USA; ommeje{at}umich.edu

Abstract

Objectives The diagnosis and treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis infection is important in preventing persistent or recurrent infection. Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is the favoured and supported method for STI treatment of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the provider cannot be assured that all recent sexual partner(s) will seek therapy. EPT is legally permissible in 38 states and is endorsed by healthcare organisations to decrease the rates of chlamydia and gonorrhoea infection. Our study investigated the impact of EPT legal status (permissible, potentially allowable or prohibited) on C. trachomatis infection rates for each state.

Methods Our ecological study modelled the number of reported chlamydia cases from 2000 to 2013 as a function of year, legal status and the interaction between year and legality. We used a negative binomial regression model that included state fixed effects (including the District of Columbia) to account for both the repeated measures per state and state-specific characteristics that could not be measured for inclusion in this study. The lagged number of C. trachomatis cases was included as a covariate and each state's total population for a given year was included in the model as an exposure parameter. States were designated Y (EPT permissible), N (EPT prohibited) and M (EPT potentially allowable), and the legal status of each state could vary over time.

Results Each legal category saw an increase in the incidence rate of C. trachomatis infection, but on average, the incidence rate for states with prohibitive EPT legislation grew significantly faster over time compared with the rate for the states where EPT was permissible. The average increase in predicted incidence rates per year for states with Y, N and M legal status were 14.1 (95% CI (12.0 to 16.2)), 17.5 (95% CI (15.9 to 19.2)) and 16.8 (95% CI (15.0 to 18.6)) cases per 100 000 persons per year, respectively, when controlling for state-specific effects.

Conclusions Our model suggests that a lack of EPT legislation is associated with an increase in STI rates. States with potentially allowable EPT legislation as of 2013 (n=8) should consider permitting EPT as a component of a multipronged strategy for treatment of sexual partners to prevent C. trachomatis infection.

  • CHLAMYDIA INFECTION
  • SEXUAL HEALTH
  • REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
  • TREATMENT

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2016-052887

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • The abstract was presented at the 2016 STD Prevention Conference of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    • Handling editor Jackie A Cassell

    • Contributors OM and GK led the writing and revision of the manuscript. SW, GK and JB contributed to the vision and design of the project. GK conducted the data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ‘The corresponding author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive license (or non-exclusive for government employees) on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in STI and any other BMJPGL products and sub-licenses such use and exploit all subsidiary rights, as set in our license http://group.bmj.com/products/journals/ instructions-for-authors/license-forms’.

    • Funding This project was supported in part by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund Trainee Grant programme.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.