Article

Cervicitis: to treat or not to treat? The role of patient preferences and decision analysis.

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, The Children's Hospital, 1056 East 19th Street, Box B025, Denver, CO 80218, USA.
Journal of Adolescent Health (Impact Factor: 2.75). 01/2007; 39(6):887-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.06.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Mucopurulent cervicitis is neither a sensitive nor a specific indicator of antibiotic sensitive infection. This analysis examines the positive and negative ramifications of treating cervicitis empirically as a Chlamydial (CT) infection. It begins where prior analyses leave off, with the number of cases of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) prevented.
Three treatments were compared: 1) treat empirically/refer partner; 2) test, treat, and base partner treatment on results; 3) test, base treatment on results. The outcomes were the physical sequelae of PID and the psychological sequelae of being diagnosed with CT in a hypothetical cohort of 500 teenagers with cervicitis, among whom the prevalence of CT averaged 33%, but ranged between 10% and 70%.
At a CT prevalence of 33%, Treatments 1 and 2 prevented three times as many cases of PID-related physical sequelae (n = 14) as Treatment 3 (n = 5). However, to prevent these 14 cases of physical sequelae, with Treatment 1, 163 teens needlessly suffer the psychological sequelae of a false CT diagnosis and with Treatment 2, 101 do so. The ratio of physical sequelae prevented to psychological sequelae caused, changed in relationship to the prevalence of CT, but was always numerically most favorable with Treatment 3. Moreover, it was the only therapeutic approach for which overall morbidity never exceeded the PID-related physical morbidity incurred in the absence of treatment.
By including the effects of over diagnosing and treating CT, we have demonstrated how the risks and benefits of empiric and nonempiric cervicitis therapy vary in relationship to CT prevalence. Failure to consider both the physical and the psychological aspects of patient well-being may mean that well-intentioned policies to reduce physical morbidity do not result in an overall improvement in health of teenagers.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
53 Views
  • Sexual Health 08/2013; · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is limited information about how the consumers of adolescent pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) care value health states associated with the disorder. The aim of this study is to determine and compare adolescent and parent PID-related health utilities. Adolescent girls (N=134) and parents (N=121) completed a web-based utility elicitation survey. Participants reviewed five scenarios describing the health states associated with PID (outpatient treatment (mild-moderate disease), inpatient treatment (severe disease), ectopic pregnancy, infertility and chronic abdominal pain). After each scenario, participants were asked to rate health-related quality of life (HRQL) using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and to complete a time trade-off (TTO) assessment. Data were evaluated using multiple linear (VAS) and quantile (TTO) regression analyses. Adolescents had significantly lower mean valuations (p<0.01) than the parents on the VAS for HRQL in each health state (outpatient (62 vs 76), inpatient (57 vs 74), ectopic (55 vs 73), infertility (59 vs 68) and chronic abdominal pain (48 vs 61)). Using quantile regression analysis, adolescents were also willing to give up more time for health gains indicated by lower median TTO scores (p<0.01) for outpatient treatment (0.98 vs 1.0), inpatient treatment (0.96 vs 1.0) and ectopic pregnancy (0.98 vs 1.0). The authors demonstrate that adolescents assign more disutility (lower valuations) than parents for HRQL and three of five of the TTO assessments for PID-related health states. Future economic evaluations using patient-specific preferences to determine resource allocation for PID management in adolescents should include adolescent health outcomes and utilities.
    Sexually transmitted infections 12/2011; 87(7):583-7. · 3.08 Impact Factor