Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Opt-Out Chlamydia Testing for High-Risk Young Women in the U.S.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:In spite of chlamydia screening recommendations, U.S. testing coverage continues to be low. This study explored the cost-effectiveness of a patient-directed, universal, opportunistic Opt-Out Testing strategy (based on insurance coverage, healthcare utilization, and test acceptance probabilities) for all women aged 15-24 years compared with current Risk-Based Screening (30% coverage) from a societal perspective. METHODS:Based on insurance coverage (80%); healthcare utilization (83%); and test acceptance (75%), the proposed Opt-Out Testing strategy would have an expected annual testing coverage of approximately 50% for sexually active women aged 15-24 years. A basic compartmental heterosexual transmission model was developed to account for population-level transmission dynamics. Two groups were assumed based on self-reported sexual activity. All model parameters were obtained from the literature. Costs and benefits were tracked over a 50-year period. The relative sensitivity of the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to the variables/parameters was determined. This study was conducted in 2014-2015. RESULTS:Based on the model, the Opt-Out Testing strategy decreased the overall chlamydia prevalence by >55% (2.7% to 1.2%). The Opt-Out Testing strategy was cost saving compared with the current Risk-Based Screening strategy. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the female pre-opt out prevalence, followed by the probability of female sequelae and discount rate. CONCLUSIONS:The proposed Opt-Out Testing strategy was cost saving, improving health outcomes at a lower net cost than current testing. However, testing gaps would remain because many women might not have health insurance coverage, or not utilize health care.

SUBMITTER: Owusu-Edusei K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6785744 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Opt-Out Chlamydia Testing for High-Risk Young Women in the U.S.

Owusu-Edusei Kwame K Hoover Karen W KW Gift Thomas L TL

American journal of preventive medicine 20160304 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>In spite of chlamydia screening recommendations, U.S. testing coverage continues to be low. This study explored the cost-effectiveness of a patient-directed, universal, opportunistic Opt-Out Testing strategy (based on insurance coverage, healthcare utilization, and test acceptance probabilities) for all women aged 15-24 years compared with current Risk-Based Screening (30% coverage) from a societal perspective.<h4>Methods</h4>Based on insurance coverage (80%); healthcare uti ...[more]

PMID: 26952078

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChlamydia is the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infection in Scotland, and is associated with potentially serious reproductive outcomes, including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and tubal factor infertility (TFI) in women. Chlamydia testing in Scotland is currently targeted towards symptomatic individuals, individuals at high risk of existing undetected infection, and young people. The cost-effectiveness of testing and treatment to prevent PID and TFI in Scotland is uncertain.MethodsA compartmental deterministic dynamic model of chlamydia infection in 15-24 year olds in Scotland was developed. The model was used to estimate the impact of a change in testing strategy from baseline (16.8% overall testing coverage; 0.4 partners notified and tested/treated per treated positive index) on PID and TFI cases. Cost-effectiveness calculations informed by best-available estimates of the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to PID and TFI were also performed.ResultsIncreasing overall testing coverage by 50% from baseline to 25.2% is estimated to result in 21% fewer cases in young women each year (PID: 703 fewer; TFI: 88 fewer). A 50% decrease to 8.4% would result in 20% more PID (669 additional) and TFI (84 additional) cases occurring annually. The cost per QALY gained of current testing activities compared to no testing is £40,034, which is above the £20,000-£30,000 cost-effectiveness threshold. However, calculations are hampered by lack of reliable data. Any increase in partner notification from baseline would be cost-effective (incremental cost per QALY gained for a partner notification efficacy of 1 compared to baseline: £5,119), and would increase the cost-effectiveness of current testing strategy compared to no testing, with threshold cost-effectiveness reached at a partner notification efficacy of 1.5. However, there is uncertainty in the extent to which partner notification is currently done, and hence the amount by which it could potentially be increased.ConclusionsCurrent chlamydia testing strategy in Scotland is not cost-effective under the conservative model assumptions applied. However, with better data enabling some of these assumptions to be relaxed, current coverage could be cost-effective. Meanwhile, increasing partner notification efficacy on its own would be a cost-effective way of preventing PID and TFI from current strategy.

Project description:Background:The prevalence of pre-treatment drug resistance (PDR) to non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) agents is increasing in sub-Saharan Africa, which may decrease the effectiveness of efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) programs. However, due to recent safety concerns, there has been hesitancy to replace efavirenz-based ART with dolutegravir in women of reproductive potential. Our objective was to evaluate whether PDR testing for women not initiating dolutegravir-based ART would be a cost-effective strategy to address the challenges posed by PDR. Methods:We developed an HIV drug resistance model that simulates the emergence and transmission of resistance mutations, calibrated to the Kenyan epidemic. We modeled three care strategies for PDR testing among women not initiating dolutegravir-based ART: no PDR testing, PDR testing with a low-cost point mutation assay, known as oligonucleotide ligation assay (OLA), and PDR testing with consensus sequencing. Using a health sector perspective, this model was used to evaluate the health outcomes, lifetime costs, and cost-effectiveness under each strategy over a 15-year time horizon starting in 2019. Findings:OLA and CS PDR testing were projected to have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of $10,741/QALY gained and $134,396/QALY gained, respectively, which are not cost-effective by national income standards. Viral suppression rates among women at 12 months after ART initiation were 87·8%, 89·0%, and 89·3% with no testing, OLA testing, and CS testing, respectively. PDR testing with OLA and CS were associated with a 0.5% and 0.6% reduction in incidence rate compared to no PDR testing. Initial PDR prevalence among women was 13.1% in 2019. By 2034, this prevalence was 17·6%, 17·4%, and 17·3% with no testing, OLA testing, and CS testing, respectively. Interpretation:PDR testing for women is unlikely to be cost-effective in Kenya whether one uses a low-cost assay, such as OLA, or consensus sequencing. Funding:National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Opt-Out Chlamydia Testing for High-Risk Young Women in the U.S.

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Opt-Out Chlamydia Testing for High-Risk Young Women in the U.S.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets