G Ardine de Wit1, Eelco A B Over2, Boris V Schmid3, Jan E A M van Bergen4, Ingrid V F van den Broek5, Marianne A B van der Sande6, Robert Welte7, Eline L M Op de Coul5, Mirjam E Kretzschmar6. 1. Prevention and Health Services, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services (VPZ), Bilthoven, the Netherlands Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Healthcare, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 2. Prevention and Health Services, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services (VPZ), Bilthoven, the Netherlands. 3. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, the Netherlands Department of Biosciences, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 4. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, the Netherlands STI AIDS Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, the Netherlands. 6. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Healthcare, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, the Netherlands. 7. Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Neuherberg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In three pilot regions of The Netherlands, all 16-29 year olds were invited to participate in three annual rounds of Chlamydia screening. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repeated Chlamydia screening, based on empirical data. METHODS: A mathematical model was employed to estimate the influence of repeated screening on prevalence and incidence of Chlamydial infection. A model simulating the natural history of Chlamydia was combined with cost and utility data to estimate the number of major outcomes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with Chlamydia. Six screening scenarios (16-29 years annually; 16-24 years annually; women only; biennial screening; biennial screening women only; screening every five years) were compared with no screening in two sexual networks, representing both lower ('national network') and higher ('urban network') baseline prevalence. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the different screening scenarios were estimated. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In all scenarios and networks, cost per major outcome averted are above €5000. Cost per QALY are at least €50,000. The default scenario as piloted in the Netherlands was least cost-effective, with ICERs of €232,000 in the national and €145,000 in the urban sexual network. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that repeated rounds of Chlamydia screening will be cost-effective. Only at high levels of willingness to pay for a QALY (>€50,000) screening may be more cost-effective than no screening. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: In three pilot regions of The Netherlands, all 16-29 year olds were invited to participate in three annual rounds of Chlamydia screening. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repeated Chlamydia screening, based on empirical data. METHODS: A mathematical model was employed to estimate the influence of repeated screening on prevalence and incidence of Chlamydial infection. A model simulating the natural history of Chlamydia was combined with cost and utility data to estimate the number of major outcomes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with Chlamydia. Six screening scenarios (16-29 years annually; 16-24 years annually; women only; biennial screening; biennial screening women only; screening every five years) were compared with no screening in two sexual networks, representing both lower ('national network') and higher ('urban network') baseline prevalence. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the different screening scenarios were estimated. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In all scenarios and networks, cost per major outcome averted are above €5000. Cost per QALY are at least €50,000. The default scenario as piloted in the Netherlands was least cost-effective, with ICERs of €232,000 in the national and €145,000 in the urban sexual network. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that repeated rounds of Chlamydia screening will be cost-effective. Only at high levels of willingness to pay for a QALY (>€50,000) screening may be more cost-effective than no screening. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Ymke J Evers; Christian J P A Hoebe; Petra F G Wolffs; Henry J C de Vries; Bernice Hoenderboom; Marianne A B van der Sande; Janneke Heijne; Jeffrey D Klausner; Jane S Hocking; Jan van Bergen Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Kevin Theunissen; Christian Hoebe; Gerjo Kok; Rik Crutzen; Chakib Kara-Zaïtri; Nanne de Vries; Jan van Bergen; Robert Hamilton; Marianne van der Sande; Nicole Dukers-Muijrers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alies van Lier; Scott A McDonald; Martijn Bouwknegt; Mirjam E Kretzschmar; Arie H Havelaar; Marie-Josée J Mangen; Jacco Wallinga; Hester E de Melker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah Kerry-Barnard; Susie Huntington; Charlotte Fleming; Fiona Reid; S Tariq Sadiq; Vari M Drennan; Elisabeth Adams; Pippa Oakeshott Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 2.655