Table 1 Extra costs and QALY gained over 20 (de Vries et al1) and 10 (Adams et al2) year periods for two studies on Chlamydia screening within several strategies
Extra costs†QALYICER
De Vries et al
    AOne-off−154 895362CS‡
    BEvery 10 years23 1925011281
    CEvery 5 years229 3386681255
    DCombined strategy* †37 2225151256
Adams et al
    EAll women <2086 974641364
    FSelective approach <20265 7868110 402
    GMen and women <20299 610903845
    HCombined strategy** †235 819828178

  • ICER, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.

  • Extra costs and QALY gained are reported from the publications relative to no screening. ICER are calculated compared with no screening (A and E) or the preceding option (B, C, F and G). D and H represent combinations of strategies A and C and E and F, respectively (see also text). Costs are in £s (cross exchange rate used of £0.70  =  €1 at 7 November 2007 from www.abnamro.nl).

  • *Combined strategy shown is that 50% of the population gets A and 50% of the population gets C; †A negative value indicates cost savings; §Cost saving; §D and H strictly dominate B and F, respectively, and according to formal health-economic decision rules B and F should not be considered for implementation; ¶From Adams et al.; the reported results for an assumed risk of pelvic inflammatory disease at 30% are used here as the illustration; **Combined strategy shown is 30% of E and 70% of G, ie all women are targeted and 70% of men are also randomly targeted.

  • Sources: de Vries et al1 and Adams et al.2