ArticlePloS one2013
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.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term outcomes after revascularization and medical therapy in premature coronary artery disease for cost-effectiveness study: A systematic review protocol.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2020Article
- Health Care Costs in a Cohort of HIV-Infected U.S. Veterans Receiving Regimens Containing Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Observational
- Risks associated with antiretroviral treatment for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): qualitative analysis of social media data and health state utility valuation.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017Article
- Early Treatment in HIV Patients: A Cost-Utility Analysis from the Italian Perspective.Clinical drug investigation · 2016Article
- Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2015Observational
- Cost analysis of initial highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens for managing human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients according to clinical practice in a hospital setting.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo 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.
designWith 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsUsing 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.
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.