Table 2

Cost-effectiveness analysis (2011 US$ among a hypothetical cohort of 10000 women)

Scenario	Strategy	Ct cases detected	False negative cases	False positive cases	Cases of PID expected	Cases of PID averted	Total cost ($)	Cost difference ($)	Cost/case of PID averted ($)*
A†	POC	873	67	136	66.4	14.0	711508	−70706	−5050
	NAAT	921	19	199	80.4	–	782214	–	–
B‡	POC	873	67	136	60.0	20.4	545872	−236342	−11585
	NAAT	921	19	199	80.4	–	782214	–	–
C§	POC	752	188	136	96.3	–	681507	–	–
	NAAT	921	19	199	80.4	15.9	782214	+100708	+6328
D¶	POC	752	188	136	98.7	–	892546	–	–
	NAAT	921	19	199	80.4	18.3	782214	−110332	−6029
E**	POC	658	282	136	123.0	–	1079550	–	–
	NAAT	921	19	199	80.4	42.5	782214	−297335	−6996

NAAT strategy saves money per each additional case of PID averted, and POC strategy was dominated.
*A positive value indicates cost per case of PID averted, while a negative value indicates cost saved per case of PID averted. POC strategy saves money per each additional case of PID averted, and NAAT strategy was dominated.
†A: base-case scenario with sensitivity of POC=92.9%; 40 min waiting time (47.5% of women waited); cost of POC test=$33.48.
‡B: best-case scenario with sensitivity of POC=92.9%; 30 min waiting time (93.1% of women waited); cost of POC test=$20.
§C: scenario with sensitivity of POC=80%; 40 min waiting time (47.5% of women waited); cost of POC test=$20.
¶D: scenario with sensitivity of POC=80%; 60 min waiting time (28.0% of women waited); cost of POC test=$40.
**E: worst case scenario with sensitivity of POC=70%; 90 min waiting time (15.3% of women waited); cost of POC test=$50.
Ct, Chlamydia trachomatis; NAAT, nucleic acid amplification test; PID, pelvic inflammatory disease; POC, point-of-care.