ABSTRACT
Objective To assess accelerated partner therapy (APT) as a contact tracing intervention for people with chlamydia.
Design Cross-over cluster-randomised controlled trial.
Setting 17 sexual health clinics (clusters) in the United Kingdom, 2018-2019.
Participants Heterosexual people aged over 16 years with a positive Chlamydia trachomatis test result and/or clinical diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease, cervicitis, non-gonococcal urethritis or epididymo-orchitis, and reporting one or more contactable sexual partner in the past six months, and their sexual partners.
Interventions Clusters were assigned by random permutation to either (a) usual care: health care professional advises the index patient to tell their sex partner(s) to attend clinic for sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening and treatment, or (b) usual care plus the offer of APT: healthcare professional assesses sex partner(s) by telephone, then sends or gives the index patient antibiotics and STI self-sampling kits for their sex partner(s). After a two-week washout period, clinics crossed over to the opposite exposure. Each period lasted 6 months.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the proportion of index patients with a positive C. trachomatis test 12-24 weeks after treatment. Secondary outcomes included proportions and types of sex partners treated.
Analysis Intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models.
Results All clinics completed both periods. Overall, 1536 and 1724 recruited index patients provided data in intervention and control phases respectively. In total, 4807 sex partners were reported, of whom 1636 (34%) were committed/established partners. Overall, 293/1536 (19.1%) of index patients chose APT for a total of 305 partners, of whom 248 accepted. In intervention and control phases, 666 (43%) and 800 (46%) of index patients were tested for C. trachomatis at 12-24 weeks; 31 (4.7%) and 53 (6.6%) were positive, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.66 (95% CI 0.41–1.04, p=0.07). Among index patients with treatment status recorded, the proportion with ≥1 sex partner treated was 775 (88.0%) in the intervention and 760 (84.6%) in the control phase, aOR 1.27 (95% CI 0.96–1.68, p=0.10). Seven adverse events of low severity were recorded.
Conclusions APT can be safely offered as a contact tracing option for people with C. trachomatis and might reduce the risk of repeat infection. Future research should find ways to increase uptake and develop alternative interventions for one-off partners.
Trial registration ISRCTN15996256
Ethical approval London - Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0773)
Protocol doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034806
What is already known on this topic
Contact tracing (partner notification) for chlamydia is a key element of infection control in the population but achieving even modest outcomes can be challenging.
Accelerated partner therapy (APT) is a contact tracing intervention that provides testing and treatment for sex partners without the need for a face-to-face consultation.
Pilot studies of APT found improvements in patient-reported outcomes of contact tracing but evidence about biological outcomes is required and the types of sexual partnerships benefitting most from APT are unknown.
What this study adds
The offer of APT as an additional contact tracing method to usual care likely caused a small reduction in repeat chlamydia infection 12-24 weeks after treatment and an increase in proportion of sex partners treated, compared with usual care alone.
APT can be safely offered as a cost-saving contact tracing option for heterosexual people with chlamydia and might reduce the risk of repeat infection, particularly for those in emotionally connected relationships, although uptake needs to be improved and novel approaches are needed for one-off partners.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN15996256
Clinical Protocols
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/3/e034806
Funding Statement
This work presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (reference number RP-PG-0614-20009).
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:
London - Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0773)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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
Footnotes
Note: Claudia S Estcourt is the confirmed first author and Jackie A Cassell is the confirmed last author of this manuscript. Other named authors were all part of the core working group and are listed alphabetically here. Additional co-investigators and members of the research team will be listed as authors on submission to a peer-reviewed journal as per ICMJE criteria for authorship.
Data Availability
The trial dataset is available from UCL data repository