ArticleRevista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo2021
Cost-effectiveness analysis and budgetary impact of the Cryptococcal Antigen Lateral Flow Assay (CRAG-LFA) implementation for the screening and diagnosis of cryptococcosis in asymptomatic people living with HIV in Brazil.
Article in Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Optimized In-House Protocol forJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative analysis of diagnostic methods for the detection of Cryptococcus neoformans meningitis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Prevalence and Associated Factors of Cryptococcal Antigenemia in HIV-Infected Patients with CD4 < 200 Cells/µL in São Paulo, Brazil: A Bayesian AnalysisJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cryptococcal infection is a frequent cause of mortality in Brazilian HIV-infected patients. The present study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of four cryptococcosis screening strategies in HIV-infected patients with CD4+ ≤ 200 cells/mm3, in Brazil. A Monte Carlo microsimulation was used to compare the following diagnostic tests: a systematic serum cryptococcal antigen (CRAG) screening with latex agglutination (CRAG-LA), a lateral flow immunochromatographic test (CRAG-LFA), India ink staining and no intervention. The rationale was that of the Unified Health System (SUS), and the time horizon was of one year for the intervention and of five years for the budgetary impact analysis (BIA). The effectiveness outcomes were years of life and years of life adjusted for quality (QALY). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the two cryptococcal antigen tests were cost-effective, presenting with superior results in comparison with India ink and no screening. CRAG-LFA, compared to CRAG-LA, has an incremental cost of US$0.25 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$73.36 (considering the US dollar equal to 5 reais, the Brazilian current money). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis between CRAG-LFA and CRAG-LA, despite showing a high agreement between the two tests, indicated the superiority of CRAG-LFA. The BIA estimated that the incorporation of CRAG-LFA would have an additional cost of approximately U$S 10.4 million dollars in five years. These findings suggest that, for the group of studied patients, the adoption of CRAG-LFA and CRAG-LA are cost-effective, while the India ink test and no intervention are less effective strategies. The BIA showed that using the CRAG-LFA test for people living with HIV (PLHIV) with CD4+ ≤ 200 cells/mm3 could reduce costs for the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).
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.