Cost and cost-effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the cost and cost-effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Singapore. The use and cost of HIV services was calculated for patients managed at the national HIV referral centre in Singapore between 1996 and 2001 from a hospital perspective. Three groups of patients were compared by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stage of HIV infection: those who had never received ART; those who had received only dual therapy; and those who had only received highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Hospital charges were used to estimate the average hospital inpatient and outpatient care costs. Life years gained (LYG) were calculated for different stages of HIV infection and the incremental costs per LYG were calculated comparing those on dual ART and HAART with those who did not receive ART. Patients on ART progressed less rapidly across all CDC stages. For CDC stage A, the incremental cost per LYG was 17,007 dollars (Singaporean dollar) (interquartile range [IQR] 7963-25,113 dollars ) and 22,511 dollars (IQR 11,299-33,724 dollars) for those on dual therapy and HAART, respectively. The incremental cost per LYG in stage B was 10,868 dollars (IQR 4506-17,239 dollars) and 21,094 dollars (IQR 7774-34,431 dollars) for patients on dual therapy and HAART, respectively, while the incremental cost per LYG for stage C patients was 9,848 dollars (IQR 5256-14,419 dollars ) and 16,513 dollars (IQR 8677-24,337 dollars) for dual therapy and HAART, respectively. Dual ART therapy and HAART were cost-effective interventions in Singapore. Cost-effectiveness is likely to improve if drug prices continue to decrease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".