The cost-effectiveness of highly active antiretroviral therapy, Canada 1991-2001.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To estimate the cost-effectiveness ratio of highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in Canada. DESIGN: A before-and-after analysis to calculate incremental cost of life year gained (LYG) between 1991 and 1995 (pre-HAART period) and between 1997 and 2001 (HAART period) for non-AIDS and AIDS groups (CDC stage of HIV infection). METHODS: For two Quebec HIV hospital clinics, mean inpatient (IP) days, outpatient (OP) visits and direct health care costs per patient-year (PPY) were calculated. Cox's proportional hazards models calculated disease progression, stratified by study periods and adjusted for gender, age at cohort entry, sexual orientation, injecting drug use and baseline CD4 cell count. RESULTS: For non-AIDS patients, mean IP days was 1.6 (pre-HAART period) compared with 0.8 PPY (HAART period); mean OP visits increased from 2.8 to 5.5 PPY. Total cost was US$ 4265 (pre-HAART period) and US$ 9445 PPY (HAART period) of which 66 and 84%, respectively were spent on antiretroviral drugs. Median progression time was 6.3 years in the pre-HAART period compared with 12.5 years in HAART period (log rank chi = 270, P < 0.0001). Incremental cost per LYG between periods was US$ 14 587. For AIDS patients, mean IP days decreased from 13.3 to 4.4 PPY between periods; OP visits increased from 8.3 to 9.2 PPY. Total costs increased from US$ 9099 to US$ 11 754 PPY, while expenditure on antiretroviral drugs increased from 29 to 72% of total cost. Median progression time was 3.8 years in the pre-HAART period, which increased to 13.3 years in the HAART period (log rank chi = 158, P < 0.0001); incremental cost per LYG between periods was US$ 12 813. CONCLUSION: HAART appeared a cost-effective intervention in Canada.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".