Literature DB >> 15466767

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 years of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Delphine Hu1, Edward W Hook, Sue J Goldie.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines have traditionally advised annual Chlamydia trachomatis screening for women younger than 25 years of age.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of recently proposed strategies for chlamydia screening.
DESIGN: State transition simulation model; cost-effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Sexually active U.S. women 15 to 29 years of age. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Modified societal.
INTERVENTIONS: Four strategies targeted to 3 specific age groups (15 to 19 years, 15 to 24 years, and 15 to 29 years): 1) no screening, 2) annual screening for all women, 3) annual screening followed by 1 repeated test within 3 to 6 months after a positive test result, and 4) annual screening followed by selective semiannual screening for women with a history of infection. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical events (for example, pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility), lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Annual screening in women 15 to 29 years of age followed by semiannual screening for those with a history of infection was the most effective and cost-effective strategy. It consistently had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than 25,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with the next most effective strategy. When the indirect transmission effects of a 10-year screening program on the probability of infection in uninfected women (that is, per-susceptible rate of infection) were considered, all strategies became more cost-effective. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were sensitive to the annual incidence of chlamydia, probability of persistent infection, screening test costs, and costs of treating long-term complications. Each variable was associated with threshold values beyond which screening became cost-saving. In probabilistic analysis, annual screening in women 15 to 29 years of age followed by semiannual screening for those with a history of infection had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than 50,000 dollars per QALY in 99% of simulations. LIMITATIONS: Uncertainty about the natural history of chlamydial infection and consideration of only the indirect transmission effects of C. trachomatis screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Annual C. trachomatis screening for all women 15 to 29 years of age and selective targeting of those with a history of infection for semiannual screening is very cost-effective compared with other well-accepted clinical interventions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15466767     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-7-200410050-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  39 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness of one to one STI prevention interventions.

Authors:  Harrell W Chesson
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.519

Review 2.  One to one interventions to reduce sexually transmitted infections and under the age of 18 conceptions: a systematic review of the economic evaluations.

Authors:  L Barham; D Lewis; N Latimer
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-07-11       Impact factor: 3.519

3.  Incidence of severe reproductive tract complications associated with diagnosed genital chlamydial infection: the Uppsala Women's Cohort Study.

Authors:  N Low; M Egger; J A C Sterne; R M Harbord; F Ibrahim; B Lindblom; B Herrmann
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.519

Review 4.  Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.

Authors:  T E Roberts; S Robinson; P Barton; S Bryan; N Low
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.519

5.  Sexually transmitted infections in Canada: A sticky situation.

Authors:  David N Fisman; Kevin B Laupland
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.471

6.  Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae--2014.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Recomm Rep       Date:  2014-03-14

7.  Cost-Effectiveness of Opt-Out Chlamydia Testing for High-Risk Young Women in the U.S.

Authors:  Kwame Owusu-Edusei; Karen W Hoover; Thomas L Gift
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  The cost effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia screening in England.

Authors:  Elisabeth J Adams; Katherine M E Turner; W John Edmunds
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.519

9.  The cost-effectiveness of screening men who have sex with men for rectal chlamydial and gonococcal infection to prevent HIV Infection.

Authors:  Harrell W Chesson; Kyle T Bernstein; Thomas L Gift; Julia L Marcus; Sharon Pipkin; Charlotte K Kent
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Sexually transmitted infections among Pakistani pregnant women and their husbands in Norway.

Authors:  Soen Eng Yap Bjerke; Ellen Holter; Siri Vangen; Babill Stray-Pedersen
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2010-09-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.