Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 21, Number 6—June 2015

Cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia Vaccination Programs for Young Women

Kwame Owusu-EduseiComments to Author , Harrell W. Chesson, Thomas L. Gift, Robert C. Brunham, and Gail Bolan
Author affiliations: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (K. Owusu-Edusei Jr, H.W. Chesson, T.L. Gift, G. Bolan); University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (R.C. Brunham)

Main Article

Table 3

Summary health and cost outcomes for a hypothetical population of 100,000 persons for the examined interventions strategies for the additional analysis (3.7% chlamydia prevalence for women 15–24 years of age)*

Strategy Cumulative sequelae
Total cost† QALYs lost Incremental
Men Women Cost† QALYs $/QALY
A) No screening, no vaccination 1,720 8,610 63,744,600 5,161 Referent Referent Referent
B) Screening 15–24-year-old persons
75% efficacy lasting an average of 10 years
C) Screening 15–24-year-old persons 
and vaccinating 14-year-old persons 1,568 6,931 87,498,800 3,989 4,755,500‡ 293‡ 16,200
D) Screening 15–24-year-old persons, 
vaccinating 14-year-old persons, and 
catch-up vaccination of 15–24-year-old 
100% efficacy lasting for life
Repeat C 1,457 6,122 82,059,500 3,541 −683,800‡ 741‡ Cost-saving
Repeat D 1,368 5,252 82,750,200 3,067 690,700 474 1,500

*All outcomes (cumulative sequelae, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], and costs) have been discounted at an annual rate of 3%.
†Costs are in 2013 US dollars and rounded to the nearest hundred.
‡Incremental cost and QALYs when compared with strategy B (screening 15–24-year-old persons). Although this strategy was weakly dominated, we did not eliminate it because we wanted to show how the vaccine strategies compared with the status quo or existing strategy (B).

Main Article

Page created: May 15, 2015
Page updated: May 15, 2015
Page reviewed: May 15, 2015
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.