Economic analysis of initial HIV treatment: Efavirenz- versus indinavir-containing triple therapy

19Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical and economic outcomes associated with triple therapy containing efavirenz or indinavir and 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs; zidovudine and lamivudine) in HIV-positive patients. Design and setting: An economic model based on viral load and CD4+ cell counts to predict long term outcomes such as progression to AIDS and AIDS-related death was developed and then analysed using data from a randomised clinical trial. Cost estimates from the healthcare system perspective were based on data from 6 state, all-payor databases, the AIDS Cost and Services Utilisation Study, and other literature. Analyses were carried out for time horizons between 5 and 15 years. Patients and interventions: HIV-positive patients with limited exposure to NRTIs. Initial regimens consisted of efavirenz or indinavir, each combined with 2 NRTIs. A maximum of 2 switches to other regimens was permitted. Main outcome measures and results: The efavirenz-containing triple therapy regimen was predicted to prolong survival at a savings of up to 10 923 US dollars (1998 values) relative to initial therapy with the indinavir-containing regimen. Patients who receive efavirenz are expected to have 11% greater survival at 5 years and fewer treatment failures (28 vs 52%, at 2 years). Overall, the economic and health benefits predicted for the efavirenz-containing regimen were robust to reasonable variation in key parameters. Conclusions: The superior clinical trial outcomes for efavirenz-containing regimens should translate into substantial economic and health benefits.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Caro, J. J., O’Brien, J. A., Migliaccio-Walle, K., & Raggio, G. (2001). Economic analysis of initial HIV treatment: Efavirenz- versus indinavir-containing triple therapy. PharmacoEconomics, 19(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119010-00007

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free