Search Annals: Advanced search

Rapid Responses to:

Articles: Delphine Hu, Edward W. Hook, III, and Sue J. Goldie Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Women 15 to 29 Years of Age: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 501-513 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

Send comment/rapid response letter

Electronic letters published:

In response:

Delphine Hu, Edward W. Hook and Sue J. Goldie   (10 December 2004)

Cost-effectiveness of chlamydia screening has not been demonstrated

Pelham M Barton, Tracy Roberts, Nicola Low, and the ClaSS Project Group   (10 December 2004)

Relative CE of different Chlamydia tests

Brian R Jackson   (29 October 2004)

In response: 10 December 2004
Delphine Hu, MD, MPH Harvard School of Public Health, Edward W. Hook and Sue J. Goldie Send rapid response to journal: Re: In response: freeflap{at}aol.com Delphine Hu, et al.	We appreciate Dr. Jackson’s interest and comment. We believe that this model has the potential to help inform a number of questions relating to chlamydial screening and chose to start by exploring the impact of different approaches to routine screening for young women from a long- term, societal perspective. Our analysis was intended to inform broad recommendations for national screening guidelines with particular emphasis on the optimal target age range and frequency for screening. At the same time, a wide variety of diagnostic tests are available for C. trachomatis detection, including cell culture, antigen-detection tests, nucleic acid hybridization tests, and most recently nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). Compared to non-amplified tests, NAATs have been demonstrated to have superior sensitivity and greater acceptability among adolescents and young adults [1-3], although at a higher cost. As pointed out in Stamm’s commentary [4], many public health based screening programs have limited resources and consequently are able to offer screening to less than half the target population. This fact illustrates an important distinction between the cost-effectiveness (i.e., “value for money”) of an available technology from a societal perspective and the affordability of that technology from the perspective of one particular payor (e.g., public health clinic). An analysis that comparatively evaluates a wide array of available screening tests and that considers a shorter time horizon, while explicitly taking into account the available budget, would be useful for regional and local decision making. Such analyses are complex since to accurately reflect the tradeoffs associated with different tests in such an analysis, one would require data on the likelihood of compliance with different tests, and correlation between compliance and preferences. We agree such an analysis is of high priority. Delphine Hu, Edward W. Hook III, and Sue J. Goldie References 1. Watson EJ, Templeton A, Russell I, Paavonen J, Mardh PA, Stary A, et al. The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review. J Med Microbiol. 2002;51:1021-31. 2. Nsuami M, Cohen DA. Participation in a school-based sexually transmitted disease screening program. Sex Transm Dis. 2000;27:473-9. 3. Wiesenfeld HC, Lowry DL, Heine RP, Krohn MA, Bittner H, Kellinger K, et al. Self-collection of vaginal swabs for the detection of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis: opportunity to encourage sexually transmitted disease testing among adolescents. Sex Transm Dis. 2001;28:321 -5. 4. Stamm WE. Chlamydia Screening: Expanding the Scope. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141: 570 - 572. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Hook has received research support from Abbott Laboratories, Roche Molecular Systems, GenProbe Inc., and Becton Dickonson, and honoraria from Abbott and GenProbe.
Cost-effectiveness of chlamydia screening has not been demonstrated 10 December 2004
Pelham M Barton, PhD University of Birmingham, UK, Tracy Roberts, Nicola Low, and the ClaSS Project Group Send rapid response to journal: Re: Cost-effectiveness of chlamydia screening has not been demonstrated p.m.barton{at}bham.ac.uk Pelham M Barton, et al.	Screening for genital chlamydia is intended to reduce the incidence of severe complications of chlamydia infection in women. Chlamydia screening programmes should also aim to eradicate this curable preventable infectious disease by preventing transmission. We believe that the static modelling approach and the assumptions made in article by Hu et al. do not necessarily mean that opportunistic screening is cost-effective [1]. The authors’ attempt to incorporate the transmission dynamics of chlamydia in a state-transition model might well have produced misleading results: sexual behaviour is not random so the use of average numbers of sexual contacts fails to capture the highly skewed distribution of sexual partnerships and differential sexual mixing patterns that are crucial to determining the distribution of sexually transmitted infections [2]. Partner notification does not appear to have been considered and, as pointed out in the accompanying editorial, the incidence of complications has probably been overestimated. Furthermore, the assumption of 100% annual screening coverage of women in the base case is unrealistic. Although this was reduced to 60% in sensitivity analysis, the model does not reflect the impact of differential coverage according to sexual behaviour. Hu et al. justify their static modelling approach by claiming that cohort models nearly always underestimate cost-effectiveness [3]. In fact, Edmunds et al. show that this is only true under certain conditions, which have not been met by Hu et al. First, the reproductive number for chlamydia is not high [4] Second, chlamydia does not confer lasting immunity; treatment restores women to a susceptible state. Edmunds et al. conclude that avoiding a proper population perspective, “is to avoid a fundamental process… for the sake of being able to complete an incorrect analysis” [3]. The use of a dynamic modelling approach does not, as Hu et al. claim, preclude a comprehensive cost analysis. In the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Project we used detailed cost data collected alongside prospective epidemiological, laboratory, and social studies in a transmission dynamic model using discrete event simulation [5]. We will be comparing our results directly with those of a static model. We think that our approach will provide a more realistic view of the population effects of chlamydia screening and hence a cost-effectiveness analysis that will be of greater relevance to policy makers. Conflict of Interest: None declared
Relative CE of different Chlamydia tests 29 October 2004
Brian R Jackson, MD, MS University of Utah Department of Pathology Send rapid response to journal: Re: Relative CE of different Chlamydia tests brian.jackson{at}aruplab.com Brian R Jackson	To the editor: I read the cost-effectiveness analysis for Chlamydia trachomatis screening by Hu et al.(1) with great interest. One topic not explicitly covered in this article, but that could easily be addressed by the same decision model, is the relative cost-effectiveness of different laboratory tests for Chlamydia trachomatis detection. Nucleic acid amplification methods, which were used by Hu et al. in their analysis, are substantially more sensitive than nonamplified DNA methods, which in turn are much more sensitive than the older enzyme immunoassay methods.(2,3) From the individual patient perspective, then, the amplified tests are clearly optimal. However, many laboratories continue to offer these other less sensitive tests,(4) a phenomenon that appears to be driven by cost. If it could be demonstrated that amplified DNA tests were cost-effective (or even better, cost-saving) versus non-amplified tests from a health system perspective, then perhaps payers could be convinced to cover the modestly increased cost of amplified testing for Chlamydia trachomatis. This would in turn benefit both individual patients and the public health. Brian Jackson, MD University of Utah Department of Pathology and ARUP Laboratories Salt Lake City, UT 1. Hu D, Hook EW, Goldie SJ. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 eyars of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Int Med. 2004;141(7):501-513. 2. Black CM, Marrazzo J, Johnson RE, Hook EW 3rd, Jones RB, Green TA, et al. Head-to-head multicenter comparison of DNA probe and nucleic acid amplification tests for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women performed with an improved reference standard. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:3757-63. 3. Watson EJ, Templeton A, Russell I, Paavonen J, Mardh PA, Stary A, et al. The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review. J Med Microbiol. 2002;51:1021-31. 4. College of American Pathologists. Surveys 2003. Northfield IL; 2003. Conflict of Interest: The author is employed by ARUP Laboratories, which performs testing for Chlamydia trachomatis.