Literature DB >> 27958189

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

G I J G Rours1,2, Tamar Anne Smith-Norowitz3, Jared Ditkowsky3, Margaret R Hammerschlag3, R P Verkooyen2, R de Groot1, H A Verbrugh2, M J Postma4.   

Abstract

Chlamydia trachomatis infections during pregnancy may have serious consequences for women and their offspring. Chlamydial infections are largely asymptomatic. Hence, prevention is based on screening. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of C. trachomatis screening during pregnancy. We used a health-economic decision analysis model, which included potential health outcomes of C. trachomatis infection for women, partners and infants, and premature delivery. We estimated the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective using recent prevalence data from a population-based prospective cohort study among pregnant women in the Netherlands. We calculated the averted costs by linking health outcomes with health care costs and productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as net costs per major outcome prevented and was estimated in base-case analysis, sensitivity, and scenario analysis. In the base-case analysis, the costs to detect 1000 pregnant women with C. trachomatis were estimated at €527,900. Prevention of adverse health outcomes averted €626,800 in medical costs, resulting in net cost savings. Sensitivity analysis showed that net cost savings remained with test costs up to €22 (test price €19) for a broad range of variation in underlying assumptions. Scenario analysis showed even more cost savings with targeted screening for women less than 30 years of age or with first pregnancies only. Antenatal screening for C. trachomatis is a cost-saving intervention when testing all pregnant women in the Netherlands. Savings increase even further when testing women younger than 30 years of age or with pregnancies only.

Entities:  

Keywords:  1. Screening pregnant women for C. trachomatis is cost saving for the Netherlands; 2. Chlamydia screening is even more cost saving when aiming at women <30 years or with first pregnancies; 3. This is the first CEA of antenatal C. trachomatis screening that includes preterm delivery; Chlamydia trachomatis; cost-effectiveness; pregnancy; preterm delivery; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27958189      PMCID: PMC5189868          DOI: 10.1080/20477724.2016.1258162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathog Glob Health        ISSN: 2047-7724            Impact factor:   2.894


  40 in total

1.  Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study.

Authors:  J J Ong; M Chen; J Hocking; C K Fairley; R Carter; L Bulfone; A Hsueh
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  The Preterm Prediction Study: association of second-trimester genitourinary chlamydia infection with subsequent spontaneous preterm birth.

Authors:  W W Andrews; R L Goldenberg; B Mercer; J Iams; P Meis; A Moawad; A Das; J P Vandorsten; S N Caritis; G Thurnau; M Miodovnik; J Roberts; D McNellis
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Chlamydia trachomatis infection during pregnancy associated with preterm delivery: a population-based prospective cohort study.

Authors:  G Ingrid J G Rours; Liesbeth Duijts; Henriette A Moll; Lidia R Arends; Ronald de Groot; Vincent W Jaddoe; Albert Hofman; Eric A P Steegers; Johan P Mackenbach; Alewijn Ott; Hendrina F M Willemse; Elizabeth A E van der Zwaan; Roel P Verkooijen; Henri A Verbrugh
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  [Screening for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy; cost-effectiveness favorable at a minimum prevalence rate of 3% or more].

Authors:  M J Postma; A Bakker; R Welte; J E van Bergen; J A van den Hoek; L T de Jong-van den Berg; J C Jager
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2000-12-02

5.  Screening for chlamydial infection: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-06-18       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Efficacy of neonatal ocular prophylaxis for the prevention of chlamydial and gonococcal conjunctivitis.

Authors:  M R Hammerschlag; C Cummings; P M Roblin; T H Williams; I Delke
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1989-03-23       Impact factor: 91.245

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

Authors:  Tracy E Roberts; Suzanne Robinson; Pelham M Barton; Stirling Bryan; Anne McCarthy; John Macleod; Matthias Egger; Nicola Low
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-07-26

8.  Effect of treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis during pregnancy.

Authors:  S Rastogi; B Das; S Salhan; A Mittal
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.561

9.  Pelvic inflammatory disease and fertility. A cohort study of 1,844 women with laparoscopically verified disease and 657 control women with normal laparoscopic results.

Authors:  L Weström; R Joesoef; G Reynolds; A Hagdu; S E Thompson
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1992 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Oral erythromycin prophylaxis vs watchful waiting in caring for newborns exposed to Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  Marc B Rosenman; Barbara E Mahon; Stephen M Downs; Martin B Kleiman
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2003-06
View more
  6 in total

1.  Treating chlamydial infections in pregnancy and preventing adverse birth outcomes.

Authors:  Paul C Adamson; Jeffrey D Klausner
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 25.071

2.  Cost-benefit analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in pregnant women in a high burden setting in the United States.

Authors:  Jared Ditkowsky; Khushal H Shah; Margaret R Hammerschlag; Stephan Kohlhoff; Tamar A Smith-Norowitz
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2017-02-18       Impact factor: 3.090

3.  Chlamydia trachomatis infection among patients attending sexual and reproductive health clinics: A cross-sectional study in Bao'an District, Shenzhen, China.

Authors:  Rui-Lin Yan; Yun-Feng Ye; Qin-Ying Fan; Yan-Hui Huang; Gui-Chun Wen; Li-Mei Li; Yu-Mao Cai; Tie-Jian Feng; Zhi-Ming Huang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoea, and Trichomonas vaginalis infections among pregnant women and male partners in Dutch midwifery practices: prevalence, risk factors, and perinatal outcomes.

Authors:  Eline L M Op de Coul; Demi Peek; Yolanda W M van Weert; Servaas A Morré; Ingrid Rours; Chantal Hukkelhoven; Ank de Jonge; Birgit van Benthem; Monique Pereboom
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 3.223

Review 5.  Chlamydia trachomatis Screening and Treatment in Pregnancy to Reduce Adverse Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes: A Review.

Authors:  Kristina N Adachi; Karin Nielsen-Saines; Jeffrey D Klausner
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-06-10

6.  Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis Among Pregnant Women, Gynecology Clinic Attendees, and Subfertile Women in Guangdong, China: A Cross-sectional Survey.

Authors:  Changchang Li; Weiming Tang; Hung Chak Ho; Jason J Ong; Xiaojing Zheng; Xuewan Sun; Xia Li; Lijun Liu; Yajie Wang; Peizhen Zhao; Mingzhou Xiong; Heping Zheng; Cheng Wang; Bin Yang
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 3.835

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.