Cost-effectiveness estimates by scenario.

Thresholds used to determine cost-effectiveness, based on World Bank database [23]. Bold-black signifies an estimate is cost-effective or very cost-effective with regards to the country-specific threshold.aFor South Africa, an intervention is considered very cost-effective at a threshold of less than 1× GDP per capita, US$8,070.bIn Alistar et al., several scenarios were considered for ART recruitment rates of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% in addition to the 40% status quo coverage as per guidelines and following universal access.cIn Cremin et al., several scenarios were considered for ART coverage. ART200: coverage of ART in HIV-infected people starting at CD4 count of dIn Desai et al., the authors considered three effectiveness mechanisms: basic, adherence-dependent, and exposure-dependent.eFor USA, an intervention is considered very cost-effective at a threshold of less than 1× GDP per capita, US$48,442.fFor USA, an intervention is considered cost-effective between 1× GDP per capita, US$48,442 and 3× GDP per capita, US$145,326.gFor Peru, an intervention is considered very cost-effective at a threshold of less than 1× GDP per capita, US$ US$6,009.hFor Ukraine, an intervention is considered very cost-effective at a threshold of less than 1× GDP per capita, US$3,615.iFor Ukraine, an intervention is considered cost-effective between 1× GDP per capita, US$3,615 and 3× GDP per capita, US$10,845.cov., coverage; CS, cost saving; freq, frequency; MC, male circumcision; MMT, methadone maintenance treatment; QoL, quality of life; resist., resistance.