ReviewJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2019
When Global ART Budgets Cannot Cover All Patients, Who Should Be Eligible?
Review in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Providing laypeople with results from dynamic infectious disease modelling studies affects their allocation preference for scarce medical resources-a factorial experiment.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Interferon-γ-Inducible Protein 10 (IP-10) Kinetics after Antiretroviral Treatment Initiation in Ethiopian Adults with HIV.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
- Reply.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWidely expected cuts to budgets for global HIV/AIDS response force hard prioritization choices.
settingWe examine policies for antiretroviral therapy (ART) eligibility through the lens of the most relevant ethical approaches.
methodsWe compare earlier ART eligibility to later ART eligibility in terms of saving the most lives, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years, special consideration for the sickest, special consideration for those who stand to benefit the most, special consideration for recipients' own health needs, and special consideration to avoid denying ART permanently.
resultsWe argue that, in most low- and middle-income countries with generalized HIV/AIDS epidemic, ethically, ART for sicker patients should come before ART eligibility for healthier ones immediately on diagnosis (namely, before "universal test and treat"). In particular, reserving all ART for sicker patients would usually save more life-years, prioritize the sickest, and display other properties that some central ethical approaches find important, and that concern none-so ethically, it is "cross-theoretically dominant," as we put it.
conclusionsIn most circumstances of depressed financing in low- and middle-income countries with generalized HIV/AIDS epidemic, reserving all ART for sicker patients is more ethical than the current international standard.
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.