1
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH & OPINION Assessing the cost effectiveness of screening ... The most cost-effective management strategy for women with asymptomatic chlamydial infection is DNA amplification assays, followed by a single dose of oral azithromycin in patients testing positive, report Swedish-based investigators. In a cohort of 1000 women and tlleir sexual plli-mcrs, tJl1S screer'.l.ng strategy ,vas tl-}e most cost effective when the prevalence of chlamydia was 6%. At a prevalence greater than 6%, enzyme immunoassay screening was cost saving and improved the cure rate, compared with no screening, but was not as cost effective as the DNA amplification assay. Tissue cell culture screening was more cost effective than no screening when the prevalence of chlamydia exceeded 14%, an unlikely scenario. A single dose of azithromycin was not associated with the poor compliance seen with a 7-day course of doxycycline twice daily. Gen9 M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in asymptomatic women. Annals of Internal Medicine 124: 1-7, Part I, I Jan 1996 'OOW4[7 The cost of routine prostate cancer screening for all US men aged> 50 years is estimated at $USI2-28 billion/year, according to the US Preventive Services Task Force. In its 1995 report, the task force concludes that early detection and treatment of this condition is unlikely to improve patient survival rates. Routine screening for prostate cancer with digital rectal examinations, prostate-specific antigen testing and transrectal ultrasound is not recommended by the task force. The report states that widespread screening for prostate cancer may cause potential harms, including anxiety and discomfort, and increased risks of incontinence, impotence and death. Routine screening may also lead to an increased number of radical prostatectomies, notes the task force. PHS task force assens prostate cancer early detection, treatment not linked to better survival. FDC Reports Blue Sheet - Health Policy - Biomedical Research: 9-11, 20 Dec 1995 8004[6339 Regulatory and Healthcare News 1173-5503I96I0045-0007I$01.00 C Adi. International Limited 1996. All rights reserved PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES NEWS 20 Jan 1996 7

Assessing the cost effectiveness of screening …

  • Upload
    lamthu

  • View
    218

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Assessing the cost effectiveness of screening …

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH & OPINION

Assessing the cost effectiveness of screening ...

• The most cost-effective management strategy for women with asymptomatic chlamydial infection is DNA amplification assays, followed by a single dose of oral azithromycin in patients testing positive, report Swedish-based investigators. In a cohort of 1000 women and tlleir sexual plli-mcrs, tJl1S screer'.l.ng strategy ,vas tl-}e most cost effective when the prevalence of chlamydia was 6%. At a prevalence greater than 6%, enzyme immunoassay screening was cost saving and improved the cure rate, compared with no screening, but was not as cost effective as the DNA amplification assay. Tissue cell culture screening was more cost effective than no screening when the prevalence of chlamydia exceeded 14%, an unlikely scenario. A single dose of azithromycin was not associated with the poor compliance seen with a 7-day course of doxycycline twice daily.

Gen9 M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in asymptomatic women. Annals of Internal Medicine 124: 1-7, Part I, I Jan 1996 'OOW4[7

• The cost of routine prostate cancer screening for all US men aged> 50 years is estimated at $USI2-28 billion/year, according to the US Preventive Services Task Force. In its 1995 report, the task force concludes that early detection and treatment of this condition is unlikely to improve patient survival rates. Routine screening for prostate cancer with digital rectal examinations, prostate-specific antigen testing and transrectal ultrasound is not recommended by the task force. The report states that widespread screening for prostate cancer may cause potential harms, including anxiety and discomfort, and increased risks of incontinence, impotence and death. Routine screening may also lead to an increased number of radical prostatectomies, notes the task force.

PHS task force assens prostate cancer early detection, treatment not linked to better survival. FDC Reports Blue Sheet - Health Policy - Biomedical Research: 9-11, 20 Dec 1995 8004[6339

Regulatory and Healthcare News

1173-5503I96I0045-0007I$01.00C Adi. International Limited 1996. All rights reserved PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES NEWS 20 Jan 1996

7