Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Sexual Health Sexual Health Society
Publishing on sexual health from the widest perspective
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > SH > SH06016
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 3(4)

The cost effectiveness of screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Australia

Silke Walleser A D , Glenn Salkeld B and Basil Donovan B C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.

B STEP (Screening Test Evaluation Program) School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.

C National Centre in HIV Epidemiology & Clinical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia.

D Corresponding author. Email: swalleser@ctc.usyd.edu.au

Sexual Health 3(4) 225-234 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH06016
Submitted: 6 March 2006  Accepted: 13 October 2006   Published: 17 November 2006

Abstract

Background: In Australia, there is no published study on the cost effectiveness of screening for chlamydia. The aim of this study was to examine the cost effectiveness of a hypothetical screening programme for chlamydia based on annual opportunistic testing of all women 25 years of age or younger consulting a general practitioner, compared with no screening. Methods: A decision–analytic modelling approach was used to determine the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening compared with no screening over 25 years. The analysis measured Australian health-care costs and benefits were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: The analysis resulted in a cost per QALY of $2968 for screening. One-way sensitivity analyses on all variables, and multi-way sensitivity analyses on some variables, showed a wide range for the cost effectiveness, from dominance (where screening is effective and saves money overall) to an ICER of $67 715 per QALY. Conclusions: The results indicate that annual opportunistic screening for chlamydia in women under 25 is a potentially worthwhile undertaking. However, the analysis also highlights uncertainties around the natural history of chlamydia and the effectiveness of chlamydia screening. Given these uncertainties, the need for further primary data collection in these areas becomes apparent.


Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge and appreciate the assistance of Ms Kirsten Howard in the use of the modelling software DATA that contributed to the design of the decision model.


References


[1] National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research. HIV/AID, viral hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections in Australia. Annual Surveillance Report 2005. Sydney: The University of NSW; 2005.

[2] Chen MY,  Donovan B. Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Australia: epidemiology and clinical implications. Sex Health 2004; 1(3 Suppl): 189–96.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | [verified November 2006].

[33] Clinical profiles for public hospitals, AR-DRG v 5.0, Australia, 2000–01 Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing; 2005.

[34] Ward B,  Rodger AJ,  Jackson TJ,  Ward B,  Rodger AJ,  Jackson TJ. Modelling the impact of opportunistic screening on the sequelae and public healthcare costs of infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in Australian women. Public Health 2006; 120(1): 42–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[35] George B , Harris A , Mitchell A . Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision-making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia 1991–1996. Working Paper 89. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University; 1999.

[36] Health Matters ABC . Infertility – costs and legal issues. ABC Online; 2005. Available online at: http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/infertility/costs.htm [verified October 2006].

[37] Ryan M. Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay. J Econ Psychol 1998; 19 179–204.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[38] Ratcliffe J . The economics of the IVF programme: a critical review. Working paper 20. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 1992.

[39] Kohl KS,  Markowitz LE,  Koumans EH. Developments in the screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2003; 30(4): 637–58.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[40] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Cervical screening in Australia 1999–2000. Cancer Series No. 16. Canberra: AIHW; 2002.

[41] van Valkengoed IG,  Morre SA,  van den Brule AJ,  Meijer CJ,  Bouter LM,  Boeke AJ. Overestimation of complication rates in evaluations of Chlamydia trachomatis screening programmes–implications for cost-effectiveness analyses.  Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33(2): 416–25.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[42] Wiesenfeld HC,  Hillier SL,  Krohn MA,  Amortegui A,  Heine RP,  Landers DV,  Sweet RL. Lower genital tract infection and endometritis: insight into subclinical pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100(3): 456–63.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[43] Wolner-Hanssen P. Silent pelvic inflammatory disease: is it overstated? Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86(3): 321–5.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[44] Barratt A,  Irwig L,  Glasziou P,  Cumming RG,  Raffle A,  Hicks N,  Gray JA,  Guyatt GH. Users’ guide to the medical literature: XVII. How to use guidelines and recommendations about screening. Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 1999; 281 2029–34.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[45] Honey E,  Templeton A. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by the control of C. trachomatis infection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 78 257–61.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[46] Welte R,  Postma M,  Leidl R,  Kretzschmar M,  Welte R,  Postma M, et al. Costs and effects of chlamydial screening: dynamic versus static modeling. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32(8): 474–83.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[47] LaMontagne D,  Fenton KA,  Randall S,  Anderson S,  Carter P. Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening. Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80 335–41.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[48] Watson EJ,  Templeton A,  Russell I,  Paavonen J,  Mardh PA,  Stary A,  Pederson BS. The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review. J Med Microbiol 2002; 51 1021–31.
| PubMed |

[49] Walker CK,  Kahn JG,  Washington AE,  Peterson HB,  Sweet RL. Pelvic inflammatory disease: metaanalysis of antimicrobial regimen efficacy. J Infect Dis 1993; 168 969–78.
| PubMed |

[50] Chen MY,  Fairley CK,  Donovan B. Discordance between trends in chlamydia notifications and hospital admission rates for chlamydia related diseases in New South Wales, Australia. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81 318–22.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[51] Ness RB,  Soper DE,  Holley RL,  Peipert J,  Randall H,  Sweet RL, et al. Effectiveness of inpatiet and outpatient treatment strategies for women with pelvic inflammatory disease: results from the pelvic inflammatory disease evaluation and clinical health (PEACH) randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186 929–37.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[52] Buchan H,  Vessey M,  Goldacre M,  Fairweather J. Morbidity following pelvic inflammatory disease. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100 558–62.
| PubMed |

[53] Safrin S,  Schachter J,  Dahrouge D,  Sweet RL. Long-term sequelae of acute pelvic inflammatory disease – a retrospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166(4): 1300–5.
| PubMed |