Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29073167›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Revealed willingness-to-pay versus standard cost-effectiveness thresholds: Evidence from the South African HIV Investment Case.

Gesine Meyer-Rath, Craig van Rensburg, Bruce Larson, Lise Jamieson, Sydney Rosen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cost-effectiveness of Low-complexity Screening Tests in Community-based Case-finding for Tuberculosis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds for Evaluating Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2015 to 2020: A Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022
    Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gesine Meyer-RathDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0439-381X
Craig van RensburgHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE2RO), Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Bruce LarsonDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, United States of America.
Lise JamiesonHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE2RO), Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Sydney RosenDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, United States of America.
Boston University · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of cost-effectiveness thresholds based on a country's income per capita has been criticized for not being relevant to decision making, in particular in middle-income countries such as South Africa. The recent South African HIV Investment Case produced an alternative cost-effectiveness threshold for HIV prevention and treatment interventions based on estimates of life years saved and the country's committed HIV budget.

methodsWe analysed the optimal mix of HIV interventions over a baseline of the current HIV programme under the committed HIV budget for 2016-2018. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as cost per life-year saved (LYS) of 16 HIV prevention and treatment interventions over 20 years (2016-2035). We iteratively evaluated the most cost effective option (defined by an intervention and its coverage) over a rolling baseline to which the more cost effective options had already been added, thereby allowing for diminishing marginal returns to interventions. We constrained the list of interventions to those whose combined cost was affordable under the current HIV budget. Costs are presented from the government perspective, unadjusted for inflation and undiscounted, in 2016 USD.

resultsThe current HIV budget of about $1.6 billion per year was sufficient to pay for the expansion of condom availability, medical male circumcision, universal treatment, and infant testing at 6 weeks to maximum coverage levels, while also implementing a social and behavior change mass media campaign with a message geared at increasing testing uptake and reducing the number of sexual partners. The combined ICER of this package of services was $547/ LYS. The ICER of the next intervention that was above the affordability threshold was $872/LYS.

conclusionsThe results of the South African HIV Investment Case point to an HIV cost-effectiveness threshold based on affordability under the current budget of $547-872 per life year saved, a small fraction of the country's GDP per capita of about $6,000.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisFinancing, PersonalAnti-HIV AgentsBudgetsHIV InfectionsHumansSouth AfricaAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID29073167
PMCPMC5658054
OpenAlexW2766045935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.