Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026
Comprehensive & Cost Effective Laboratory Monitoring of HIV/AIDS: an African Role Model
Published on: October 31, 2010
Cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia antibody tests in subfertile women
A A A Fiddelers1, J A Land, G Voss
1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. Afi@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.
