This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (40)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Genetics  • Genetic Counseling/ Testing/ Therapy  • Infectious Diseases  • Bacterial Infections  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic

Mary-Ann B. Shafer, MD; Robert H. Pantell, MD; Julius Schachter, PhD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153:119-125.

Objective  To determine the most cost-effective method of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in asymptomatic sexually active adolescent females.

Design  Cost-effectiveness decision analysis comparing pelvic examination with cervical screening (the current national standard) with a model of urine screening with ligase chain reaction testing for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

Methods  Four strategies using decision analysis were compared for a potential cohort of 100,000 asymptomatic sexually active young women: (1) pelvic examination screening in 100%; (2) urine screening in 100%; (3) actual predicted pelvic examination screening in 70%; and (4) actual predicted urine screening in 90%. Assumptions and costs were generated from published sources.

Main Outcome Measures  Cases of PID prevented per year and cost to prevent a case of PID.

Results  A total of 1750 cases of PID would be predicted to occur per year with no screening. Strategy 1 would prevent the most cases of PID (1283) at a mean cost of $10,230. Strategy 2 would prevent 1215 cases of PID at a mean cost of $5093. The marginal cost to prevent an additional case of PID by strategy 1 is $101,454. Strategy 3 would prevent 898 cases of PID and 1093 cases of PID would be prevented with urine screening in strategy 4.

Conclusion  Urine-based ligase chain reaction screening is the most cost-effective strategy to detect chlamydial and gonococcal genital infection in asymptomatic sexually active adolescent females and, owing to ease of implementation, the most likely to prevent the greatest number of cases of PID.

From the Department of Pediatrics (Drs Shafer and Pantell), Divisions of Adolescent Medicine (Dr Shafer) and General Pediatrics (Dr Pantell), and Department of Laboratory Medicine (Dr Schachter), University of California, San Francisco.

RELATED ARTICLE

Amplified DNA Testing for Sexually Transmitted Diseases: New Opportunities and New Questions
Alain Joffe
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153(2):111-113.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.
Roberts et al.
Sex. Transm. Infect. 2006;82:193-200.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Projected Economic Costs Due to Health Consequences of Teenagers' Loss of Confidentiality in Obtaining Reproductive Health Care Services in Texas
Franzini et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:1140-1146.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Gaps in the Evidence for Well-Child Care: A Challenge to Our Profession
Moyer and Butler
Pediatrics 2004;114:1511-1521.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Women 15 to 29 Years of Age: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Hu et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:501-513.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparing First-Void Urine Specimens, Self-Collected Vaginal Swabs, and Endocervical Specimens To Detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by a Nucleic Acid Amplification Test
Shafer et al.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003;41:4395-4399.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Vaginal Swabs Are Appropriate Specimens for Diagnosis of Genital Tract Infection with Chlamydia trachomatis
Schachter et al.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003;41:3784-3789.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of a Clinical Practice Improvement Intervention on Chlamydial Screening Among Adolescent Girls
Shafer et al.
JAMA 2002;288:2846-2852.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Method Does the Adolescent Prefer?: Adolescents' Attitudes Toward First-Void Urine, Self-collected Vaginal Swab, and Pelvic Examination
Serlin et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156:588-591.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Multicenter Evaluation of the BDProbeTec ET System for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Urine Specimens, Female Endocervical Swabs, and Male Urethral Swabs
Van Der Pol et al.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001;39:1008-1016.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Predictors of repeat Chlamydia trachomatis infections diagnosed by DNA amplification testing among inner city females
Burstein et al.
Sex. Transm. Infect. 2001;77:26-32.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of Vaginal Infections in Adolescent Women: Can It Be Done Without a Speculum?
Buchanan; et al.
Pediatrics 2000;105:156-157.
FULL TEXT  

Urine-Based Screening for STDs
JWatch General 1999;1999:8-8.
FULL TEXT  

Amplified DNA Testing for Sexually Transmitted Diseases: New Opportunities and New Questions
Joffe
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999;153:111-113.
FULL TEXT