ReviewCurrent opinion in HIV and AIDS2013
Modeling the cost-effectiveness of HIV treatment: how to buy the most 'health' when resources are limited.
Review in Current opinion in HIV and AIDS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Spending of HIV resources in Asia and Eastern Europe: systematic review reveals the need to shift funding allocations towards priority populations.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2014Pooled it
- Point-of-Care HIV Viral Load Testing: an Essential Tool for a Sustainable Global HIV/AIDS Response.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Review
- Using Contact Patterns to Inform HIV Interventions in Persons Who Inject Drugs in Northern Vietnam.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo summarize recent cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that evaluate optimal treatment strategies for persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). RECENT
findingsEfforts to attain universal coverage of current treatment guidelines (e.g., initiation at CD4 cell count <350 cells/μl) are generally very costeffective. Expansion of access beyond current guidelines will additionally improve clinical outcomes and aversion of new HIV infections; however, cost-effectiveness is more uncertain. Increasing access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) offers greater health benefit than investing the same funds in intensive laboratory monitoring for those on ART, particularly in those settings in which universal coverage has not yet been attained. Recommended ART regimens (e.g., tenofovir) have favorable cost-effectiveness when compared with substitution of newer, more expensive agents (e.g., rilpivirine, darunavir) or substitution of older, cheaper alternatives that are more toxic (e.g., stavudine). SUMMARY: There is increasing use of CEA to evaluate decisions regarding HIV treatment in order to buy the most 'health' with limited resources. Expansion of ART access provides substantial clinical and preventive benefit and offers favorable cost-effectiveness. Intensive laboratory monitoring may not be the highest priority in settings in which resources are constrained. Further work on the economic impact, clinical effectiveness, and feasibility of ART treatment for all (e.g., no CD4 cell initiation criteria) is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.