Literature DB >> 17656504

Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project.

Tracy E Roberts1, Suzanne Robinson, Pelham M Barton, Stirling Bryan, Anne McCarthy, John Macleod, Matthias Egger, Nicola Low.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis compared with a policy of no organised screening in the United Kingdom.
DESIGN: Economic evaluation using a transmission dynamic mathematical model.
SETTING: Central and southwest England. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical population of 50,000 men and women, in which all those aged 16-24 years were invited to be screened each year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost effectiveness based on major outcomes averted, defined as pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, infertility, or neonatal complications.
RESULTS: The incremental cost per major outcome averted for a programme of screening women only (assuming eight years of screening) was 22,300 pounds (33,000 euros; $45,000) compared with no organised screening. For a programme screening both men and women, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was approximately 28,900 pounds. Pelvic inflammatory disease leading to hospital admission was the most frequently averted major outcome. The model was highly sensitive to the incidence of major outcomes and to uptake of screening. When both were increased the cost effectiveness ratio fell to 6200 pound per major outcome averted for screening women only.
CONCLUSIONS: Proactive register based screening for chlamydia is not cost effective if the uptake of screening and incidence of complications are based on contemporary empirical studies, which show lower rates than commonly assumed. These data are relevant to discussions about the cost effectiveness of the opportunistic model of chlamydia screening being introduced in England.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17656504      PMCID: PMC1941857          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39262.683345.AE

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  25 in total

1.  The correct approach to modelling and evaluating chlamydia screening.

Authors:  T Roberts; S Robinson; P Barton; S Bryan; A McCarthy; J Macleod; M Egger; N Low
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.519

2.  Costs and effects of chlamydial screening: dynamic versus static modeling.

Authors:  Robert Welte; Maarten Postma; Reiner Leidl; Mirjam Kretzschmar
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.830

Review 3.  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

4.  Racial/ethnic group differences in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States: a network explanation.

Authors:  E O Laumann; Y Youm
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use.

Authors:  Nicola Low; Anne McCarthy; Tracy E Roberts; Mia Huengsberg; Emma Sanford; Jonathan A C Sterne; John Macleod; Chris Salisbury; Karl Pye; Aisha Holloway; Andrea Morcom; Rita Patel; Suzanne M Robinson; Paddy Horner; Pelham M Barton; Matthias Egger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-12-15

6.  Systematic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: estimating cost-effectiveness using dynamic modeling and Dutch data.

Authors:  Robin de Vries; Jan E A M van Bergen; Lolkje T W de Jong-van den Berg; Maarten J Postma
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 7.  Systematic review: noninvasive testing for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

Authors:  Robert L Cook; Shari L Hutchison; Lars Østergaard; R Scott Braithwaite; Roberta B Ness
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-06-07       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design.

Authors:  N Low; A McCarthy; J Macleod; C Salisbury; P J Horner; T E Roberts; R Campbell; A Herring; S Skidmore; E Sanford; J A C Sterne; G Davey Smith; A Graham; M Huengsberg; J Ross; M Egger
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.519

9.  Opportunistic and systematic screening for chlamydia: a study of consultations by young adults in general practice.

Authors:  Chris Salisbury; John Macleod; Matthias Egger; Anne McCarthy; Rita Patel; Aisha Holloway; Fowzia Ibrahim; Jonathan A C Sterne; Paddy Horner; Nicola Low
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 5.386

10.  Developing a realistic sexual network model of chlamydia transmission in Britain.

Authors:  Katherine M E Turner; Elisabeth J Adams; Nigel Gay; Azra C Ghani; Catherine Mercer; W John Edmunds
Journal:  Theor Biol Med Model       Date:  2006-01-20       Impact factor: 2.432

View more
  11 in total

1.  Vouchers versus Lotteries: What works best in promoting Chlamydia screening? A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Claudia Niza; Caroline Rudisill; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Appl Econ Perspect Policy       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 4.083

Review 2.  Screening for sexually transmitted infections at home or in the clinic?

Authors:  Shirley L Shih; Anna S Graseck; Gina M Secura; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Curr Opin Infect Dis       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.915

3.  Screening for sickle cell and thalassaemia in primary care: a cost-effectiveness study.

Authors:  Stirling Bryan; Elizabeth Dormandy; Tracy Roberts; Anthony Ades; Pelham Barton; Ariadna Juarez-Garcia; Lazaros Andronis; Jonathan Karnon; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in Dutch pregnant women.

Authors:  G I J G Rours; Tamar Anne Smith-Norowitz; Jared Ditkowsky; Margaret R Hammerschlag; R P Verkooyen; R de Groot; H A Verbrugh; M J Postma
Journal:  Pathog Glob Health       Date:  2016 Oct - Dec       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters.

Authors:  Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Margaret L Brandeau
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.749

6.  Management of Chlamydia trachomatis genital tract infection: screening and treatment challenges.

Authors:  Brandie D Taylor; Catherine L Haggerty
Journal:  Infect Drug Resist       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 4.003

7.  Heterogeneity in risk of pelvic inflammatory diseases after chlamydia infection: a population-based study in Manitoba, Canada.

Authors:  Bethan Davies; Helen Ward; Stella Leung; Katy M E Turner; Geoff P Garnett; James F Blanchard; B Nancy Yu
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 5.226

8.  Risk of pelvic inflammatory disease following Chlamydia trachomatis infection: analysis of prospective studies with a multistate model.

Authors:  Malcolm J Price; A E Ades; Daniela De Angelis; Nicky J Welton; John Macleod; Kate Soldan; Ian Simms; Katy Turner; Paddy J Horner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Incidence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women in England: two methods of estimation.

Authors:  M J Price; A E Ades; D de Angelis; N J Welton; J Macleod; K Turner; P J Horner
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 2.451

Review 10.  How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review.

Authors:  Bethan Davies; Sarah-Jane Anderson; Katy M E Turner; Helen Ward
Journal:  Theor Biol Med Model       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 2.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.