ArticlePharmacoEconomics2013
Lopinavir/ritonavir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for HIV infection: a cost-effectiveness analysis for the United States.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating HIV Management and Comorbidity Costs Among Aging HIV Patients in the United States: A Systematic Review.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Pooled it
- Application of discrete event simulation in health care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2018Pooled it
- Health Economics Evaluation of Bictegravir/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir for a First-Line Treatment of HIV-1 Infection in China.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiretroviral drugs for treatment-naive HIV infection in China.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of dolutegravir/lamivudine for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 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
- Adolescent Trials Network for HIV-AIDS Scale It Up Program: Protocol for a Rational and Overview.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- 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
- Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in Canada.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Review
- Modeling the cost-effectiveness of HIV treatment: how to buy the most 'health' when resources are limited.Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2013Review
- A methodological review of models used to estimate the cost effectiveness of antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of HIV infection.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.