Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
BJOG. 2016 Jun;123(7):1194-202. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13567. Epub 2015 Aug 26.
Determine the cost-effectiveness of screening all pregnant women aged 16-25 years for chlamydia compared with selective screening or no screening.
Cost effectiveness based on a decision model.
Antenatal clinics in Australia.
Pregnant women, aged 16-25 years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chlamydia screening for all pregnant women aged 16-25 years during an antenatal visit is cost effective.
确定对所有 16-25 岁孕妇进行衣原体筛查的成本效益,与选择性筛查或不筛查相比。
基于决策模型的成本效益。
澳大利亚的产前诊所。
16-25 岁的孕妇。
利用之前研究的临床数据和文献中的结果数据,我们从政府(作为主要第三方资金提供者)的角度,对衣原体筛查的短期围产期(12 个月时间范围)增量直接成本和结果进行了建模。成本来源于医疗保险福利计划、药品福利计划以及按照澳大利亚改良诊断相关组分类的住院费用的平均成本权重。
筛查和管理衣原体并发症的直接成本、检测和治疗的衣原体病例数,以及增量成本效益比,并进行敏感性分析。
假设衣原体流行率为 3%,与不筛查相比,对所有 16-25 岁的首次产前检查的孕妇进行筛查,每获得一个质量调整生命年需花费 34931 美元。当衣原体流行率高于 11%时,筛查所有女性可能会节省成本。增量成本效益比对衣原体假设流行率、盆腔炎概率、阳性衣原体检测的效用权重以及衣原体检测和医生预约的成本最为敏感。
从澳大利亚政府的角度来看,与不筛查或选择性筛查相比,对所有 16-25 岁的孕妇在一次产前检查中进行衣原体筛查可能具有成本效益,尤其是衣原体流行率增加时。
对所有 16-25 岁的孕妇在产前检查时进行衣原体筛查具有成本效益。