Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Different Tests for <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i>
Authors: Brian Jackson
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2005)

Letters15 February 2005Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Different Tests for Chlamydia trachomatisBrian Jackson, MDBrian Jackson, MDFrom University of Utah and ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT 84108.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-4-200502150-00019 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:I read Hu and colleagues' cost-effectiveness analysis for Chlamydia trachomatis screening (1) with great interest. One topic that was not explicitly covered but could easily be addressed by the same decision model is the relative cost-effectiveness of different laboratory tests for C. trachomatis detection. Nucleic acid amplification methods, which Hu and colleagues used in their analysis, are substantially more sensitive than nonamplified DNA methods, which in turn are much more sensitive than the older enzyme immunoassay methods (2, 3). From the individual patient perspective, then, the amplified tests are clearly optimal. However, many laboratories continue to offer ...References1. Hu D, Hook EW, Goldie SJ. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 years of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:501-13. [PMID: 15466767] LinkGoogle Scholar2. Black CM, Marrazzo J, Johnson RE, Hook EW, Jones RB, Green TA, et al. Head-to-head multicenter comparison of DNA probe and nucleic acid amplification tests for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women performed with an improved reference standard. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:3757-63. [PMID: 12354877] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Watson EJ, Templeton A, Russell I, Paavonen J, Mardh PA, Stary A, et al. The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review. J Med Microbiol. 2002;51:1021-31. [PMID: 12466399] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. College of American Pathologists. Surveys 2003. Northfield, IL: Coll of American Pathologists; 2003. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From University of Utah and ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT 84108.Disclosures: Dr. Jackson is employed by ARUP Laboratories, which performs testing for Chlamydia trachomatis. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoScreening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Women 15 to 29 Years of Age: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Delphine Hu , Edward W. Hook III , and Sue J. Goldie Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Different Tests for Chlamydia trachomatis Sue J. Goldie , Delphine Hu , and Edward W. Hook III Metrics Cited ByPolicy and Behavioral Interventions for STDs 15 February 2005Volume 142, Issue 4Page: 308KeywordsChlamydia trachomatisConflicts of interestDNAEnzyme immunoassayImmunohistochemistryLaboratory testsNucleic acidsPrevention, policy, and public health ePublished: 15 February 2005 Issue Published: 15 February 2005 CopyrightCopyright © 2005 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...