» Articles » PMID: 23460905

Cost-utility Analysis of Lopinavir/ritonavir Versus Atazanavir + Ritonavir Administered As First-line Therapy for the Treatment of HIV Infection in Italy: from Randomised Trial to Real World

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2013 Mar 6
PMID 23460905
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To estimate the lifetime cost utility of two antiretroviral regimens (once-daily atazanavir plus ritonavir [ATV+r] versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/r]) in Italian human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients naïve to treatment.

Design: With this observational retrospective study we collected the clinical data of a cohort of HIV-infected patients receiving first-line treatment with LPV/r or ATV+r.

Methodology: A Markov microsimulation model including direct costs and health outcomes of first- and second-line highly active retroviral therapy was developed from a third-party (Italian National Healthcare Service) payer's perspective. Health and monetary outcomes associated with the long-term use of ATV+r and LPV/r regimens were evaluated on the basis of eight health states, incidence of diarrhoea and hyperbilirubinemia, AIDS events, opportunistic infections, coronary heart disease events and, for the first time in an economic evaluation, chronic kidney disease (CKD) events. In order to account for possible deviations between real-life data and randomised controlled trial results, a second control arm (ATV+r 2) was created with differential transition probabilities taken from the literature.

Results: The average survival was 24.061 years for patients receiving LPV/r, 24.081 and 24.084 for those receiving ATV+r 1 and 2 respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for the patients receiving LPV/r than those receiving ATV+r (13.322 vs. 13.060 and 13.261 for ATV+r 1 and 2). The cost-utility values were 15,310.56 for LPV/r, 15,902.99 and 15,524.85 for ATV+r 1 and 2.

Conclusions: Using real-life data, the model produced significantly different results compared with other studies. With the innovative addition of an evaluation of CKD events, the model showed a cost-utility value advantage for twice-daily LPV/r over once-daily ATV+r, thus providing evidence for its continued use in the treatment of HIV.

Citing Articles

.

Marcellusi A, Bini C, Andreoni M, Antinori A, Mennini F Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2023; 8:147-154.

PMID: 36627876 PMC: 9616186. DOI: 10.33393/grhta.2021.2279.


Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis.

Lu Z, Xiong X, Lee T, Wu J, Yuan J, Jiang B Front Pharmacol. 2021; 12:700012.

PMID: 34737696 PMC: 8562301. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.700012.


Long-term outcomes after revascularization and medical therapy in premature coronary artery disease for cost-effectiveness study: A systematic review protocol.

Ebadi Fard Azar F, Aboutorabi A, Afrouzi M, Hajahmadi M, Karpasand S J Educ Health Promot. 2021; 10:314.

PMID: 34667814 PMC: 8459860. DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1590_20.


Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa.

Boyer S, Nishimwe M, Sagaon-Teyssier L, March L, Koulla-Shiro S, Bousmah M Pharmacoecon Open. 2019; 4(1):45-60.

PMID: 31273686 PMC: 7018873. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0157-9.


Health Care Costs in a Cohort of HIV-Infected U.S. Veterans Receiving Regimens Containing Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine.

Nelson R, Ma J, Crook J, Knippenberg K, Nyman H, Paul D J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018; 24(10):1052-1066.

PMID: 30247099 PMC: 10397780. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.10.1052.


References
1.
Worm S, De Wit S, Weber R, Sabin C, Reiss P, El-Sadr W . Diabetes mellitus, preexisting coronary heart disease, and the risk of subsequent coronary heart disease events in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus: the Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D Study). Circulation. 2009; 119(6):805-11. PMC: 2715841. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.790857. View

2.
Broder M, Chang E, Bentley T, Juday T, Uy J . Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States. J Med Econ. 2011; 14(2):167-78. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2011.554932. View

3.
Molina J, Andrade-Villanueva J, Echevarria J, Chetchotisakd P, Corral J, David N . Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study. Lancet. 2008; 372(9639):646-55. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61081-8. View

4.
Young J, Schafer J, Fux C, Furrer H, Bernasconi E, Vernazza P . Renal function in patients with HIV starting therapy with tenofovir and either efavirenz, lopinavir or atazanavir. AIDS. 2012; 26(5):567-75. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32834f337c. View

5.
Bowles N . The Delphi technique. Nurs Stand. 2000; 13(45):32-6. DOI: 10.7748/ns1999.07.13.45.32.c2650. View