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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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