Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27390864›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Screening HIV-Infected Patients with Low CD4 Counts for Cryptococcal Antigenemia prior to Initiation of Antiretroviral Therapy: Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Screening Strategies in South Africa.

Bruce A Larson, Peter C Rockers, Rachael Bonawitz, Charlotte Sriruttan, Deborah K Glencross, Naseem Cassim, Lindi M Coetzee, Gregory S Greene, Tom M Chiller, Snigdha Vallabhaneni and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Bruce A LarsonDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9322-2387
Peter C RockersDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Rachael BonawitzDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Charlotte SriruttanNational Institute for Communicable Diseases - Centre for Opportunistic, Tropical and Hospital Infections, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Deborah K GlencrossNational Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Naseem CassimNational Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Lindi M CoetzeeNational Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Gregory S GreeneMycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Tom M ChillerMycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Snigdha VallabhaneniMycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Lawrence LongFaculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Craig van RensburgFaculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Nelesh P GovenderNational Institute for Communicable Diseases - Centre for Opportunistic, Tropical and Hospital Infections, Johannesburg, South Africa.
National Health Laboratory Service · ZABoston University · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

Phased Implementation of a Public Health Programme: Cryptococcal Screening and Treatment in South AfricaR01AI118511 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BOULWARE, DAVID R, GOVENDER, NELESH PREMAPRAGASAN · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI118511
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2015 South Africa established a national cryptococcal antigenemia (CrAg) screening policy targeted at HIV-infected patients with CD4+ T-lymphocyte (CD4) counts <100 cells/ μl who are not yet on antiretroviral treatment (ART). Two screening strategies are included in national guidelines: reflex screening, where a CrAg test is performed on remnant blood samples from CD4 testing; and provider-initiated screening, where providers order a CrAg test after a patient returns for CD4 test results. The objective of this study was to compare costs and effectiveness of these two screening strategies.

methodsWe developed a decision analytic model to compare reflex and provider-initiated screening in terms of programmatic and health outcomes (number screened, number identified for preemptive treatment, lives saved, and discounted years of life saved) and screening and treatment costs (2015 USD). We estimated a base case with prevalence and other parameters based on data collected during CrAg screening pilot projects integrated into routine HIV care in Gauteng, Free State, and Western Cape Provinces. We conducted sensitivity analyses to explore how results change with underlying parameter assumptions.

resultsIn the base case, for each 100,000 CD4 tests, the reflex strategy compared to the provider-initiated strategy has higher screening costs ($37,536 higher) but lower treatment costs ($55,165 lower), so overall costs of screening and treatment are $17,629 less with the reflex strategy. The reflex strategy saves more lives (30 lives, 647 additional years of life saved). Sensitivity analyses suggest that reflex screening dominates provider-initiated screening (lower total costs and more lives saved) or saves additional lives for small additional costs (< $125 per life year) across a wide range of conditions (CrAg prevalence, patient and provider behavior, patient survival without treatment, and effectiveness of preemptive fluconazole treatment).

conclusionsIn countries with substantial numbers of people with untreated, advanced HIV disease such as South Africa, CrAg screening before initiation of ART has the potential to reduce cryptococcal meningitis and save lives. Reflex screening compared to provider-initiated screening saves more lives and is likely to be cost saving or have low additional costs per additional year of life saved.

Indexed as

Antigens, FungalAnti-Retroviral AgentsCryptococcosisHIV InfectionsModels, BiologicalCD4 Lymphocyte CountCosts and Cost AnalysisCryptococcusFemaleHIV-1HumansMaleMass ScreeningSouth AfricaAntigens, FungalAnti-Retroviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID27390864
PMCPMC4938608
OpenAlexW2467633622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.