Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on November 11, 2004
Human Reproduction 2005 20(2):425-432; doi:10.1093/humrep/deh608
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia antibody tests in subfertile women
1 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment and 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht and 3 Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, University Maastricht, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: afi{at}kemta.azm.nl
BACKGROUND: For the evaluation of tubal function, Chlamydia antibody testing (CAT) has been introduced as a screening test. We compared six CAT screening strategies (five CAT tests and one combination of tests), with respect to their cost-effectiveness, by using IVF pregnancy rate as outcome measure. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed based on a source population of 1715 subfertile women. The model incorporates hysterosalpingography (HSG), laparoscopy and IVF. To calculate IVF pregnancy rates, costs, effects, cost-effectiveness and incremental costs per effect of the six different CAT screening strategies were determined. RESULTS: pELISA Medac turned out to be the most cost-effective CAT screening strategy (
15 075 per IVF pregnancy), followed by MIF Anilabsystems (
15 108). A combination of tests (pELISA Medac and MIF Anilabsystems;
15 127) did not improve the cost-effectiveness of the single strategies. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results are robust for changes in the baseline values of the model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Only small differences were found between the screening strategies regarding the cost-effectiveness, although pELISA Medac was the most cost-effective strategy. Before introducing a particular CAT test into clinical practice, one should consider the effects and consequences of the entire screening strategy, instead of only the diagnostic accuracy of the test used.
Key words: Chlamydia antibody testing/cost-effectiveness/decision model/diagnostic test
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J.A. Land, J.E.A.M. Van Bergen, S.A. Morre, and M.J. Postma Epidemiology of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women and the cost-effectiveness of screening Hum. Reprod. Update, October 14, 2009; (2009) dmp035v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.E. den Hartog, C.M.J.G. Lardenoije, J.L. Severens, J.A. Land, J.L.H. Evers, and A.G.H. Kessels Screening strategies for tubal factor subfertility Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2008; 23(8): 1840 - 1848. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.E. den Hartog, S.A. Morre, and J.A. Land Chlamydia trachomatis-associated tubal factor subfertility: immunogenetic aspects and serological screening Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2006; 12(6): 719 - 730. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||

