An Economic Evaluation of Conception Strategies for Heterosexual Serodiscordant Couples where the Male Partner is HIV-Positive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To conduct an economic evaluation of the three commonly used interventions that reduce sexual HIV transmission when an HIV-negative female aims to conceive with an HIV-positive male on combination antiretroviral therapy (condomless sex restricted to timed ovulation [CS], sperm washing with intrauterine insemination [SW] and condomless sex restricted to timed ovulation with pre-exposure prophylaxis [CS-PrEP]). As SW and CS-PrEP are only privately available for pregnancy planning for this population in Canada, this study was conducted to inform policy decisions concerning potential public health insurance coverage, as well as to inform fertility counselling in settings with adequate combination antiretroviral therapy access globally. METHODS: We developed a cohort Markov model with a lifetime horizon and used the perspective of Ontario's Ministry of Health (MOH). Input parameters were drawn from literature, the MOH's Schedule of Benefits and a time trade-off questionnaire designed for this study. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and benefits were discounted at annual rates of 3%. Costs were reported in Canadian 2013 dollars and an exchange rate of 1 USD to 1.066 CND was applied where necessary. Sensitivity analysis assessed the uncertainty of model parameters. RESULTS: The base case analysis found that CS-PrEP and SW were each more costly and less effective at conception than CS. The results were robust in the sensitivity analysis and suggest that CS is the dominant conception strategy in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Neither CS-PrEP nor SW represent better value for money relative to CS as a conception option for HIV-discordant couples with positive male partners. Based on these findings, CS-PrEP and SW cannot be recommended for public-funding in developed countries.
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 | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".