Healthcare Costs and Life-years Gained From Treatments Within the Advancing Cryptococcal Meningitis Treatment for Africa (ACTA) Trial on Cryptococcal Meningitis: A Comparison of Antifungal Induction Strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mortality from cryptoccocal meningitis remains high. The ACTA trial demonstrated that, compared with 2 weeks of amphotericin B (AmB) plus flucystosine (5FC), 1 week of AmB and 5FC was associated with lower mortality and 2 weeks of oral flucanozole (FLU) plus 5FC was non-inferior. Here, we assess the cost-effectiveness of these different treatment courses. METHODS: Participants were randomized in a ratio of 2:1:1:1:1 to 2 weeks of oral 5FC and FLU, 1 week of AmB and FLU, 1 week of AmB and 5FC, 2 weeks of AmB and FLU, or 2 weeks of AmB and 5FC in Malawi, Zambia, Cameroon, and Tanzania. Data on individual resource use and health outcomes were collected. Cost-effectiveness was measured as incremental costs per life-year saved, and non-parametric bootstrapping was done. RESULTS: Total costs per patient were US $1442 for 2 weeks of oral FLU and 5FC, $1763 for 1 week of AmB and FLU, $1861 for 1 week of AmB and 5FC, $2125 for 2 weeks of AmB and FLU, and $2285 for 2 weeks of AmB and 5FC. Compared to 2 weeks of AmB and 5FC, 1 week of AmB and 5FC was less costly and more effective and 2 weeks of oral FLU and 5FC was less costly and as effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 1 week of AmB and 5FC versus oral FLU and 5FC was US $208 (95% confidence interval $91-1210) per life-year saved. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45035509. CONCLUSIONS: Both 1 week of AmB and 5FC and 2 weeks of Oral FLU and 5FC are cost-effective treatments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".