Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Aug 11;335(7614):291.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39262.683345.AE. Epub 2007 Jul 26.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Tracy E Roberts et al. BMJ. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Episodes of major outcomes averted by screening. In each diagram, cumulative outcomes refer only to those incurred up to given time for total simulated population (25 000 women initially, together with new female entrants as model was running)
None
Fig 2 Base case results over time. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) based on costs incurred and outcomes observed up to specified time only

References

    1. Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts TE, et al. Epidemiological, social, diagnostic, and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection: the chlamydia screening studies project. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(8). - PubMed
    1. National Chlamydia Screening Programme Steering Group. New frontiers: annual report of the national chlamydia screening programme in England 2005/06 London: Health Protection Agency, 2006
    1. Honey E, Augood C, Templeton A. Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies. Sex Transm Infect 2002;78:406-12. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roberts T, Robinson S, Barton P, Bryan S, McCarthy A, Macleod J, et al. The correct approach to modelling and evaluating chlamydia screening. Sex Transm Infect 2004;80:324-5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roberts T, Robinson S, Barton P, Bryan S, Low N, for the chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project. Screening for chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling. Sex Transm Infect 2006;82:193-200. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms