ABSTRACT
Objectives Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM). We determined the cost-effectiveness of testing strategies for MG using a healthcare provider perspective.
Methods We used inputs from a dynamic transmission model of MG among MSM living in Australia in a decision tree model to evaluate the impact of four testing scenarios on MG incidence: 1) no one tested; 2) symptomatic MSM; 3) symptomatic and high-risk asymptomatic MSM; 4) all MSM. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using a willingness to pay threshold of $30,000 AUD per QALY gained. We explored the impact of adding an AMR tax (i.e. additional cost per antibiotic consumed) to identify the threshold whereby any testing for MG is no longer cost-effective.
Results Testing only symptomatic MSM is the most cost-effective (ICER $3,677 per QALY gained) approach. Offering testing to all men is dominated (i.e. not recommended because of higher costs and lower QALYs gained compared to other strategies). When the AMR tax was above $150, any testing for MG was no longer cost-effective.
Conclusion Testing only symptomatic MSM is the most cost-effective option even when the potential costs associated with AMR are accounted for (up to $150 additional cost per antibiotic consumed). For pathogens like MG where there are anticipated future costs related to AMR, we recommend models to test the impact of incorporating these costs as they can change the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies.
KEY MESSAGES
What is already known on this topic - Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) is a sexually transmitted pathogen with rising antimicrobial resistance.
What this study adds - This economic evaluation found that testing only symptomatic men who have sex with men (MSM) is the most cost-effective option. When the costs per antibiotic consumed is greater than $150, any testing for MG is no longer cost-effective.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy - Among testing strategies for MSM, testing for MG should be restricted to symptomatic men only.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leader Fellowship (GNT1193955).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This was an economic evaluation, so no ethics approval was required.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
