ArticlePharmacoEconomics2001
Economic analysis of initial HIV treatment. Efavirenz- versus indinavir-containing triple therapy.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Durability of Efavirenz Compared With Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Regimens in Antiretroviral-Naïve Patients in the Caribbean and Central and South America.Open forum infectious diseases · 2018Article
- HIV treatment as prevention: modelling the cost of antiretroviral treatment--state of the art and future directions.PLoS medicine · 2012Article
- Cost-effectiveness of tipranavir versus comparator protease inhibitor regimens in HIV infected patients previously exposed to antiretroviral therapy in the Netherlands.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2007Article
- Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation.PharmacoEconomics · 2005Article
- [Economic aspects of ambulatory and inpatient treatment of HIV positive patients].Der Internist · 2003Article
- Highly active antiretroviral therapy: pharmacoeconomic issues in the management of HIV infection.PharmacoEconomics · 2001Article
- Efavirenz: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in HIV infection.PharmacoEconomics · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo 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
settingAn 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
interventionsHIV-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
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsThe superior clinical trial outcomes for efavirenz-containing regimens should translate into substantial economic and health benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.