Additional analyses
Alternative case #1
Does the near-elimination of organ wastage (p_cancelled=0.01) affect the results of the base case?
We see that this improves the NMB associated with screening but does not make screening the preferred strategy.
Alternative case #2
Does the near-elimination of organ wastage (p_cancelled=0.01) and near-universal prophylaxis (p_prophrate=0.99) affect the results of the base case?
While screening is no longer cost-saving in this scenario due to increased fluconazole costs, NMB is now expected to be positive, suggesting some benefit of screening.
Alternative case #3
If the cost of cryptococcus is dramatically higher (cost_disease=3000000), does this affect our conclusions?
In this setting, the effects of organ wastage still appear to win out over the costs of disease.
Alternative case #4
IF we set the cost of cryptococcal disease markedly higher (cost_disease=3000000) while also assuming the near-elimination of organ wastage (p_cancelled=0.01) and near-universal prophylaxis (p_prophrate=0.99), what do we conclude?
Screening is clearly the preferred strategy under these circumstances.
Other results
- Base case analysis: primary results and interpretation
- One-way sensitivity analysis: key drivers of results
- Probabilistic sensitivity analyses: uncertainty and robustness
- About: methods, assumptions, and disclosures