» Articles » PMID: 26307516

Chlamydia Screening for Pregnant Women Aged 16-25 years Attending an Antenatal Service: a Cost-effectiveness Study

Overview
Journal BJOG
Date 2015 Aug 27
PMID 26307516
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Determine the cost-effectiveness of screening all pregnant women aged 16-25 years for chlamydia compared with selective screening or no screening.

Design: Cost effectiveness based on a decision model.

Setting: Antenatal clinics in Australia.

Sample: Pregnant women, aged 16-25 years.

Methods: Using clinical data from a previous study, and outcomes data from the literature, we modelled the short-term perinatal (12-month time horizon) incremental direct costs and outcomes from a government (as the primary third-party funder) perspective for chlamydia screening. Costs were derived from the Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and average cost-weights reported for hospitalisations classified according to the Australian refined diagnosis-related groups.

Main Outcome Measures: Direct costs of screening and managing chlamydia complications, number of chlamydia cases detected and treated, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated and subjected to sensitivity analyses.

Results: Assuming a chlamydia prevalence rate of 3%, screening all antenatal women aged 16-25 years at their first antenatal visit compared with no screening was $34,931 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Screening all women could result in cost savings when chlamydia prevalence was higher than 11%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were most sensitive to the assumed prevalence of chlamydia, the probability of pelvic inflammatory disease, the utility weight of a positive chlamydia test and the cost of the chlamydia test and doctor's appointment.

Conclusion: From an Australian government perspective, chlamydia screening of all women aged 16-25 years old during one antenatal visit was likely to be cost-effective compared with no screening or selective screening, especially with increasing chlamydia prevalence.

Tweetable Abstract: Chlamydia screening for all pregnant women aged 16-25 years during an antenatal visit is cost effective.

Citing Articles

Acceptability, feasibility, equity and resource use for prenatal screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: A systematic review.

Shanmugasegaram S, Auguste U, Fleurant-Ceelen A, Sabourin S, Labbe A, Bullard J Can Commun Dis Rep. 2024; 50(7-8):250-258.

PMID: 39170589 PMC: 11318970. DOI: 10.14745/ccdr.v50i78a03.


Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.

Rivero-Arias O, Png M, White A, Yang M, Taylor-Phillips S, Hinton L Health Technol Assess. 2024; 28(25):1-180.

PMID: 38938110 PMC: 11228689. DOI: 10.3310/PYTK6591.


Cost-effectiveness of resistance-guided therapy for Mycoplasma genitalium in Australia.

Adawiyah R, Bradshaw C, Vodstrcil L, Fairley C, Zhang L, Ong J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):12856.

PMID: 38834637 PMC: 11150248. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63056-1.


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.


The association between adverse pregnancy outcomes with genital infection among pre-pregnancy couples in Shenzhen, China: A cross-sectional study.

Sun S, Zhang L, Wu Q, Tian L, Ding Y, Liu L Front Public Health. 2022; 10:1038391.

PMID: 36568751 PMC: 9780381. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1038391.