An Economic Evaluation of Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Adolescent Males

A Swedish cost-effectiveness analysis of community-based Chlamydia trachomatis PCR testing of postal urine specimens obtained at home

“…This cost included an average of 10 minutes, for a nurse (US$17/hour) to inform and arrange a clinical visit for an infected subject, cost of facilities, and one physician appointment (US$115) for treatment and treatment confirmation and/or complaints of possible side effects associated with antibiotic treatment (16,17). A seven-day course of doxycycline (US$7.50) for all and one week of clotrimazole (US$1.50) for the 20% of females who develop moniliasis as a result of antibiotic treatment was also included in the treatment costs (16). We assumed that an infected subject became cured after the antibiotic treatment.…”

“…We assumed that an infected subject became cured after the antibiotic treatment. Under Swedish law, partner tracing of C. trachomatis infected individuals is mandatory, which we assumed would take 30 minutes for a social worker to perform and was also added to the treatment cost (16). A physician appointment (US$115) and antibiotic treatment of one sexual partner was also included in the C. trachomatis treatment cost.…”

“…conjunctivitis and pneumonia. Treatment of a C. trachomatis infection included two physician appointments, antibiotic treatment, partner notification, and treatment of one partner including physician appointments (16). The physician costs differed between specialities and only one physician appointment was included in the infertility investigations and ectopic pregnancies (16).…”

What Is Known About the Cost-Effectiveness of Health Services for Returning Prisoners?

“…Since returning prisoners will continue to be at risk of infection when they leave prison, even if their infections were identified and treated while incarcerated, it is important that they continue to be screened regularly. A Swedish study (Genc, Ruusuvaara, & Mardh, 1993) found that routine screening of high-risk adolescents for chlamydia in a primary care setting was cost-effective if prevalence was above 2% for chlamydia.…”

“…Citation: Genc et al, 1993 Date/population: Parameters derived from previous studies Service(s): Testing of asymptomatic males for chlamydia, and partner notification of those infected Costs included: Screening; treatment Benefits/outcomes: Averted cost of treatment Conclusion: Compared to no screening, routine screening reduces overall costs when prevalence exceeds 2%.…”