Literature DB >> 9471930

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending family planning clinics. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies.

M R Howell1, T C Quinn, C A Gaydos.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis in family planning clinics is associated with a reduced incidence of chlamydial sequelae. However, the question of whom to screen to maintain efficient use of resources remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of chlamydial screening done according to three sets of criteria in asymptomatic women attending family planning clinics.
DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis done by using a decision model with the perspective of a health care system. Model estimates were based on analysis of cohort data, clinic costs, laboratory costs, and published data.
SETTING: Two family planning clinics in Baltimore, Maryland. PATIENTS: 7699 asymptomatic women who presented between April 1994 and August 1996. INTERVENTION: Three screening strategies--screening according to the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), screening all women younger than 30 years of age, and universal screening--were retrospectively applied and compared. All women were tested with polymerase chain reaction. MEASUREMENTS: Medical outcomes included sequelae prevented in women, men, and infants. Total costs included screening program costs and future medical costs of all sequelae. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of each strategy were calculated.
RESULTS: Without screening, 152 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease would occur at a cost of $676,000. Screening done by using the CDC criteria would prevent 64 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease at a cost savings of $231,000. Screening all women younger than 30 years of age would prevent an additional 21 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease and save $74,000. Universal screening would prevent an additional 6 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease but would cost $19,000 more than age-based screening, or approximately $3000 more per case of pelvic inflammatory disease prevented. If the prevalence of C. trachomatis is more than 10.2% or if less than 88.5% of infections occur in women younger than 30 years of age, universal screening provides the greatest cost savings.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that age-based screening provides the greatest cost savings of the three strategies examined. However, universal screening is desirable in some situations. In general, screening done by using any criteria and a highly sensitive diagnostic assay should be part of any chlamydial prevention and control program or health plan.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9471930     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-4-199802150-00005

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


  32 in total

1.  Just the berries. Diagnosing Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  J Hickey
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 2.  Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies.

Authors:  E Honey; C Augood; A Templeton; I Russell; J Paavonen; P-A Mårdh; A Stary; B Stray-Pedersen
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.519

3.  Provider willingness to screen all sexually active adolescents for chlamydia.

Authors:  B O Boekeloo; M H Snyder; M Bobbin; G R Burstein; D Conley; T C Quinn; J M Zenilman
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.519

4.  Chlamydia trachomatis diagnostics.

Authors:  M A Chernesky
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.519

5.  Current Issues in Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  Robert L. Cook; Lars ØStergaard
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.725

6.  Modelling the healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme.

Authors:  E J Adams; D S LaMontagne; A R Johnston; J M Pimenta; K A Fenton; W J Edmunds
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.519

7.  Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis. The case for screening is made, but much detail remains to be worked out.

Authors:  F Boag; F Kelly
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-05-16

8.  Follow-up, treatment, and reinfection rates among asymptomatic chlamydia trachomatis cases in general practice.

Authors:  Irene G M van Valkengoed; Servaas A Morré; Adriaan J C van den Brule; Chris J L M Meijer; Lex M Bouter; Jacques Th M van Eijk; A Joan P Boeke
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  The laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections.

Authors:  Max A Chernesky
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.471

10.  Reasons for testing women for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the Calgary region.

Authors:  Deirdre L Church; Ali Zentner; Heather Semeniuk; Elizabeth Henderson; Ron Read
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  2003-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.