ArticleHIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
Economic and health implications from earlier detection of HIV infection in the United Kingdom.
Article in HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo model the budget and survival impact of implementing interventions to increase the proportion of HIV infections detected early in a given UK population. PATIENTS AND
methodsA Microsoft Excel decision model was designed to generate a set of outcomes for a defined population. Survival was modeled on the Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research Europe (COHERE) study extrapolated to a 5-year horizon as a constant hazard. Hazard rates were specific to age, sex, and whether detection was early or late. The primary outcomes for each year up to 5 years were: annual costs, numbers of infected cases, hospital admissions, and surviving cases. Three locations in the UK were chosen to model outcomes across a range of HIV prevalence areas: Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham (LSL), Greater Manchester Cluster (GMC), and Kent and Medway (K&M).
resultsIn LSL, the projected cumulative cost savings over 5 years were £3,210,206 or £5,290,206 when including the value of the 104 life-years saved. Savings were insensitive to transmission rates, but sensitive in direct proportion to the percentage shift from late to early detection. In GMC, savings were in a similar proportion to LSL, but the magnitude was smaller, as a consequence of the lower base-case HIV prevalence. In K&M, with a smaller population and lower HIV prevalence than GMC, savings were commensurately smaller (£733,202 cumulatively over 5 years).
conclusionThe results strengthen the rationale for implementing increased testing in high prevalence areas. However, in areas of low prevalence, it is unlikely that costs will be returned over a 5-year period.
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.