An Economic Evaluation of Treatments for HIV-Associated Facial Lipoatrophy: A Cost-Utility Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: HIV-associated facial lipoatrophy (FLA) is a stigmatizing hallmark for persons living with HIV [PLWH], and can lead to poor social functioning, social isolation, and reduced labour force participation. Treatments for this condition are prohibitively expensive and are not publicly insured in the Province of Ontario, Canada. Information gleaned from an economic evaluation of treatments for FLA could inform policy decision making concerning coverage. METHOD: Decision-analytic techniques were used to estimate the lifetime incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from use of either Poly-l-lactic acid or Polyalkylimide gel from the perspectives of society and the Ontario Ministry of Health. Disease progression probabilities and utilities were derived from the literature. Costs were obtained through interviews with product distributors and physicians who perform these treatments. Costs were valued in 2009 Canadian Dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted annually at 3%. FINDINGS: Treatments using Polyalkylimide gel exhibit such a cost advantage over those using Poly-l-lactic acid that they more than compensate for the health-related quality of life advantages of Poly-l-lactic acid. From a Ministry of Health perspective, the incremental cost-utility ratios for Polyalkylimide gel or Poly-l-lactic acid compared to no treatment were $45,457 CAD or $57,352 CAD per QALY, respectively, $1.00 CAD = $0.876 USD). From a societal perspective the equivalent ratios were $48,583 CAD and $66,608 CAD respectively. These findings were not altered in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: FLA treatments for PLWH enhance QALYs and meet conventional cost-utility thresholds. The incremental cost per QALY for Polyalkylimide gel was lower than that for Poly-l-lactic acid.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".