Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23620210›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2013

Lopinavir/ritonavir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for HIV infection: a cost-effectiveness analysis for the United States.

Kit N Simpson, Pamela P Pei, Jörgen Möller, Robert W Baran, Birgitta Dietz, William Woodward, Kristen Migliaccio-Walle, J Jaime Caro

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Kit N SimpsonDepartment of Health Leadership and Management, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, 151B Rutledge Ave., Room 412, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. simpsonk@musc.edu
Pamela P Pei
Jörgen Möller
Robert W Baran
Birgitta Dietz
William Woodward
Kristen Migliaccio-Walle
J Jaime Caro
Abbott Fund · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USAbbott (Germany) · DEMcGill University · CAMedical University of South Carolina · USUnited BioSource Corporation (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ARTEMIS trial compared first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) to darunavir plus ritonavir (DRV + RTV) for HIV-1-infected subjects. In order to fully assess the implications of this study, economic modelling extrapolating over a longer term is required.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to simulate the course of HIV and its management, including the multiple factors known to be of importance in ART.

methodsA comprehensive discrete event simulation was created to represent, as realistically as possible, ART management and HIV outcomes. The model was focused on patients for whom clinicians believed that LPV/r or DRV + RTV were good options as a first regimen. Prognosis was determined by the impact of initial treatment on baseline CD4+ T-cell count and viral load, adherence, virological suppression/failure/rebound, acquired resistance mutations, and ensuing treatment changes. Inputs were taken from trial data (ARTEMIS), literature and, where necessary, stated assumptions. Clinical measures included AIDS events, side effects, time on sequential therapies, cardiovascular events, and expected life-years lost as a result of HIV infection. The model underwent face, technical and partial predictive validation. Treatment-naive individuals similar to those in the ARTEMIS trial were modelled over a lifetime, and outcomes with first-line DRV + RTV were compared with those with LPV/r, both paired with tenofovir and emtricitabine. Up to three regimen changes were permitted. Drug prices were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Outcomes were lifetime healthcare costs (in 2011 US dollars) from the US healthcare system perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (discounted at 3 % per annum).

resultsChoice of LPV/r over DRV + RTV as initial ART resulted in nearly identical clinical outcomes, but distinctly different economic consequences. Starting with an LPV/r regimen potentially results in approximately US$25,000 discounted lifetime savings. Accumulated QALYs for LPV/r and DRV + RTV were 12.130 and 12.083, respectively (a 19-day difference). In sensitivity analyses, net monetary benefit ranged from US$12,000 to US$31,000, favouring LPV/r (base case US$27,762).

conclusionsA comprehensive simulation of lifetime course of HIV in the USA indicated that using LPV/r as first-line therapy compared with DRV + RTV may result in cost savings, with similar clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-HIV AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisDarunavirDrug CombinationsDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHealth Care CostsHIV InfectionsHumansLopinavirMaleMiddle AgedModels, EconomicPrognosisQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAnti-HIV AgentsDarunavirDrug CombinationsLopinavirlopinavir-ritonavir drug combinationRitonavirSulfonamides

Identifiers

PMID23620210
OpenAlexW2005333158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.