» Articles » PMID: 17656504

Cost Effectiveness of Home Based Population Screening for Chlamydia Trachomatis in the UK: Economic Evaluation of Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Project

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2007 Jul 28
PMID 17656504
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of Chlamydia trachomatis screening from the perspective of health economics: a systematic review.

Yao H, Li C, Tian F, Liu X, Yang S, Xiao Q Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1212890.

PMID: 37881345 PMC: 10595018. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1212890.


Gonorrhoea and chlamydia diagnosis as an entry point for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: a modelling study.

Kasaie P, Schumacher C, Jennings J, Berry S, Tuddenham S, Shah M BMJ Open. 2019; 9(3):e023453.

PMID: 30837248 PMC: 6429744. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023453.


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

Rours G, Smith-Norowitz T, Ditkowsky J, Hammerschlag M, Verkooyen R, de Groot R Pathog Glob Health. 2016; 110(7-8):292-302.

PMID: 27958189 PMC: 5189868. DOI: 10.1080/20477724.2016.1258162.


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

Goldhaber-Fiebert J, Brandeau M Med Decis Making. 2015; 35(7):818-46.

PMID: 25926281 PMC: 4418217. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15583845.


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

Davies B, Ward H, Leung S, Turner K, Garnett G, Blanchard J J Infect Dis. 2014; 210 Suppl 2:S549-55.

PMID: 25381374 PMC: 4231643. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiu483.


References
1.
Welte R, Postma M, Leidl R, Kretzschmar M . Costs and effects of chlamydial screening: dynamic versus static modeling. Sex Transm Dis. 2005; 32(8):474-83. DOI: 10.1097/01.olq.0000161181.48687.cf. View

2.
Roberts T, Robinson S, Barton P, Bryan S, Low N . Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling. Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(3):193-200. PMC: 2593085. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2005.017517. View

3.
Low N, McCarthy A, Roberts T, Huengsberg M, Sanford E, Sterne J . Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use. BMJ. 2005; 332(7532):14-9. PMC: 1325126. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38678.405370.7C. View

4.
Low N, Egger M, Sterne J, Harbord R, Ibrahim F, Lindblom B . Incidence of severe reproductive tract complications associated with diagnosed genital chlamydial infection: the Uppsala Women's Cohort Study. Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(3):212-8. PMC: 2576723. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2005.017186. View

5.
Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, McCarthy A, Sterne J, Holloway A . Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005; 330(7497):940. PMC: 556339. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F. View