Dataset Information

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To review systematically and critically, evidence used to derive estimates of costs and cost effectiveness of chlamydia screening. METHODS: Systematic review. A search of 11 electronic bibliographic databases from the earliest date available to August 2004 using keywords including chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease, economic evaluation, and cost. We included studies of chlamydia screening in males and/or females over 14 years, including studies of diagnostic tests, contact tracing, and treatment as part of a screening programme. Outcomes included cases of chlamydia identified and major outcomes averted. We assessed methodological quality and the modelling approach used. RESULTS: Of 713 identified papers we included 57 formal economic evaluations and two cost studies. Most studies found chlamydia screening to be cost effective, partner notification to be an effective adjunct, and testing with nucleic acid amplification tests, and treatment with azithromycin to be cost effective. Methodological problems limited the validity of these findings: most studies used static models that are inappropriate for infectious diseases; restricted outcomes were used as a basis for policy recommendations; and high estimates of the probability of chlamydia associated complications might have overestimated cost effectiveness. Two high quality dynamic modelling studies found opportunistic screening to be cost effective but poor reporting or uncertainty about complication rates make interpretation difficult. CONCLUSION: The inappropriate use of static models to study interventions to prevent a communicable disease means that uncertainty remains about whether chlamydia screening programmes are cost effective or not. The results of this review can be used by health service managers in the allocation of resources, and health economists and other researchers who are considering further research in this area.

SUBMITTER: Roberts TE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2593085 | biostudies-other | 2006 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.

Roberts T E TE Robinson S S Barton P P Bryan S S Low N N

Sexually transmitted infections 20060601 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To review systematically and critically, evidence used to derive estimates of costs and cost effectiveness of chlamydia screening.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review. A search of 11 electronic bibliographic databases from the earliest date available to August 2004 using keywords including chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease, economic evaluation, and cost. We included studies of chlamydia screening in males and/or females over 14 years, including studies of diagnostic tests, co ...[more]

PMID: 16731666

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infections are asymptomatic. The infection can persist and lead to severe sequelae. Therefore, screening for CT can primarily prevent serious sequelae.AimTo systematically evaluate CT screening from the perspective of health economics, summarize previous findings from different target populations, and make practical recommendations for developing local CT screening strategies.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochran Library, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (Ovid) were searched from January 1, 2000, to March 4, 2023. Studies reporting the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, or cost-utility of CT screening were eligible to be included. A narrative synthesis was used to analyze and report the results following the PRISMA guidelines. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies.ResultsOur review finally comprised 39 studies addressing four populations: general sexually active people (n = 25), pregnant women (n = 4), women attending STD and abortion clinics (n = 4), and other high-risk individuals (n = 6). The total number of participants was ~7,991,198. The majority of studies assessed the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of the screening method. The results showed that the following screening strategies may be cost-effective or cost-saving under certain conditions: performing CT screening in young people aged 15-24 in the general population, military recruits, and high school students; incorporating CT screening into routine antenatal care for pregnant women aged 15-30; opportunistic CT screening for women attending STD and abortion clinics; home-obtained sampling for CT screening using urine specimens or vaginal swab; performing CT screening for 14-30-year-old people who enter correctional institutions (i.e., jail, detention) as soon as possible; providing CT screening for female sex workers (FSWs) based on local incidence and prevalence; adding routine CT screening to HIV treatment using rectal samples from men who have sex with men (MSM).ConclusionWe found that CT screening in general sexually active people aged 15-24, military recruits, high school students, pregnant women aged 15-30, women attending STD and abortion clinics, people entering jail, detention, FSWs, and MSM has health economic value. Due to the different prevalence of CT, diversities of economic conditions, and varying screening costs among different populations and different countries, regions, or settings, no uniform and standard screening strategies are currently available. Therefore, each country should consider its local condition and the results of health economic evaluations of CT screening programs in that country to develop appropriate CT screening strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Permanent childhood hearing loss is one of the most common birth conditions associated with speech and language delay. A hearing screening can result in early detection and intervention for hearing loss. OBJECTIVES:To update and expand previous systematic reviews of economic evaluations of childhood hearing screening strategies, and explore the methodological differences. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane database, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's (CADTH) Grey matters. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Economic evaluations reporting costs and outcomes for both the intervention and comparator arms related to childhood hearing screening strategies. RESULTS:Thirty evaluations (from 29 articles) were included for review. Several methodological issues were identified, including: few evaluations reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); none estimated utilities directly from surveying children; none included disutilities and costs associated with adverse events; few included costs and outcomes that differed by severity; few included long-term estimates; none considered acquired hearing loss; some did not present incremental results; and few conducted comprehensive univariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Evaluations published post-2011 were more likely to report QALYs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as outcome measures, include long-term treatment and productivity costs, and present incremental results. LIMITATIONS:We were unable to access the economic models and, although we employed an extensive search strategy, potentially not all relevant economic evaluations were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Most economic evaluations concluded that childhood hearing screening is value for money. However, there were significant methodological limitations with the evaluations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic hepatitis B infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. Economic evaluations are a useful decision tool to assess costs versus benefits of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening. No published study reviewing economic evaluations of HBV screening in LMICs has been undertaken to date. METHODS:The following databases were searched from inception to 21 April 2017: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, the Cochrane Library, Global Health and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry. English-language studies were included if they assessed the costs against the benefits of HBV screening in LMICs. PROSPERO registration: CRD42015024391, 20 July 2015. RESULTS:Nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. One study from Thailand indicated that adding hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) to HBV vaccination for newborns following screening of pregnant women might be cost-effective for some LMICs, though inadequate total funding and health infrastructure were likely to limit feasibility. A similar study from China indicated a benefit to cost ratio of 2.7 from selective HBIG administration to newborns, if benefits were considered from a societal perspective. Of the two studies assessing screening amongst the general adult population, a single cost-benefit analysis from China found a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 1.73 with vaccination guided by HBV screening of adults aged 21-39, compared to 1.42 with vaccination with no screening, both from a societal perspective. Community-based screening of adults in The Gambia with linkage to treatment yielded an incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year averted of $566 (in 2017 USD), less than two-times gross domestic product per capita for that country. CONCLUSIONS:Screening with 'catch-up' vaccination for younger adults yielded benefits above costs, and screening linked with treatment has shown cost-effectiveness that may be affordable for some LMICs. However, interpretation needs to account for total cost implications and further research in LMICs is warranted as there were only nine included studies and evidence from high-income countries is not always directly applicable.

Project description:ObjectiveDue to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature.MethodsA literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies' overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.ResultsWe found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing.ConclusionsApplication of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests' efficacy remains of utmost importance.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesize and appraise economic evaluations of vision screening to detect vision impairment in children.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted on seven electronic databases, grey literature, and websites of agencies conducting health technology assessments. Studies were included if they (1) were full, comparative economic evaluations that used cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, or cost-analysis methods; (2) described screening services designed to detect amblyopia, strabismus, or uncorrected refractive errors in children under 6 years of age; and (3) published after 1994. High-quality studies were synthesized descriptively. Currencies were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Quality was assessed with the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ).ResultsVision screening services were conducted by paid staff, volunteers, or health care professionals in schools or clinics. Thirteen studies were published from five countries: China (n = 1), United States (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), and Germany (n = 6). Analytical techniques included cost-utility/cost-effectiveness combination (n = 2), cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 7), cost-utility analysis (n = 1), cost-benefit analysis (n = 1), cost-consequence analysis (n = 1), and cost analysis (n = 1). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from C$1,056 to C$151,274 per additional case detected/prevented and from C$9,429 to C$30,254,703 per additional QALY gained, depending on the type of screening service and comparator. Six studies were determined to be of high quality.ConclusionVision screening to detect amblyopia for young children may be cost-effective compared with no screening if amblyopia reduced quality of life. Studies varied significantly in the type of screening services and comparators used. Methodological limitations were common. Future studies would be aided immensely by prospective studies on the impact of amblyopia on the health-related quality of life of young children and guidelines on the effective conduct of vision screening.

Project description:BackgroundChest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a promising technology for population-based screening because it is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive, associated with low radiation and highly sensitive to lung cancer. To improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening, simultaneous screening for other diseases could be considered. This systematic review was conducted to analyse studies that published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chest LDCT screening programs for different diseases.MethodsScopus and PubMed were searched for English publications (1 January 2011-22 July 2022) using search terms related to screening, computed tomography and cost-effectiveness. An additional search specifically searched for the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Included publications should present a full health economic evaluation of population screening with chest LDCT. The extracted data included the disease screened for, model type, country context of screening, inclusion of comorbidities or incidental findings, incremental costs, incremental effects and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio amongst others. Reporting quality was assessed using the 2022 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsThe search yielded 1799 unique papers, of which 43 were included. Most papers focused on lung cancer screening (n = 40), and three were on coronary calcium scoring. Microsimulation was the most commonly applied modelling type (n = 16), followed by life table analysis (n = 10) and Markov cohort models (n = 10). Studies reflected the healthcare context of the US (n = 15), Canada (n = 4), the UK (n = 3) and 13 other countries. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from US$10,000 to US$90,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lung cancer screening compared to no screening and was US$15,900/QALY-US$45,300/QALY for coronary calcium scoring compared to no screening.DiscussionAlmost all health economic evaluations of LDCT screening focused on lung cancer. Literature regarding the health economic benefits of simultaneous LDCT screening for multiple diseases is absent. Most studies suggest LDCT screening is cost-effective for current and former smokers aged 55-74 with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking history. Consequently, more evidence on LDCT is needed to support further cost-effectiveness analyses. Preferably evidence on simultaneous screening for multiple diseases is needed, but alternatively, on single-disease screening.Registration of systematic reviewProspective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews registration CRD42021290228 can be accessed https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=290228 .

Dataset Information

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.

Publications

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets