Fig. 3

Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions with an Impact on AMR (International Dollar Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio). ABP antibiotic prescribing; AC/LRTI acute cough or lower respiratory tract infection; ACU acute setting; AMS Antimicrobial stewardship; CA checklist activated; CAS chromogenic agar screen; CRE carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae; CRP C-reactive protein; DCN decolonisation; HIV human immune-deficiency syndrome; HRSA high-risk speciality admissions; IA intra-abdominal; ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; ICU intensive care unit; MMR measles, mumps and rubella; MRSA methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; PCR polymerase chain reaction; POCCR point-of-care C-reactive protein; PrEP pre-exposure prophylaxis; SG-SDD surveillance-guided selective digestive decontamination; SPEC specialist services setting; TB tuberculosis; TEA teaching hospital setting; WHO World Health Organization. Blue dot corresponds to the ICER value on the Y axis. Green triangle means that the intervention (first mentioned technology) dominates the comparator (latter mentioned). Red square means that the intervention (first mentioned technology) was dominated by the comparator (latter mentioned). Orange diamond denotes interventions with Y axis positions adjusted to improve the presentation of the figure, the actual ICER values are listed in the footnotes. Light green lines denote the upper and lower limits of the low/middle-income country cost-effectiveness threshold ($18–600). Blue lines denote the upper and lower limits of the middle/high-income country cost-effectiveness threshold ($2,576–10,081). Adjusted ICER values: 30% coverage of viral load monitoring vs. No viral load monitoring for HIV resistance ($41,476,437/QALY); POCCR testing vs. No POCCR for ABP for AC/LRTI ($106,606)