ReviewClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2013
Economic evaluation of initial antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected patients: an update of Italian guidelines.
Review in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis comparing 48-week treatment outcomes of single and multi-tablet antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of people living with HIV.AIDS research and therapy · 2018Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing Single and Multi-Tablet Fixed Dose Combination HIV Treatment Regimens.Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Economic evaluation studies in the field of HIV/AIDS: bibliometric analysis on research development and scopes (GAPBMC health services research · 2019Article
- How has the cost of antiretroviral therapy changed over the years? A database analysis in Italy.BMC health services research · 2018Observational
- Cost considerations in the current antiretroviral era.AIDS (London, England) · 2016Observational
- Early Treatment in HIV Patients: A Cost-Utility Analysis from the Italian Perspective.Clinical drug investigation · 2016Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiretroviral therapy in a cohort of HIV-infected patients starting first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy during 6 years of observation.Patient related outcome measures · 2015Article
- A narrative review of cost-effectiveness analysis of people living with HIV treated with HAART: from interventions to outcomes.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHighly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has allowed many HIV-infected patients to enjoy longer survival and a better quality of life. We performed an economic analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of HAART regimens in Italy for managing HIV-naïve infected patients with a viral load below 100,000 copies/mL. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe population considered in the model consisted of adult subjects with an HIV viral load below 100,000 copies/mL who received antiretroviral HAART treatment for the first time, according to the Italian National Guidelines with recommendation grade A1. The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was carried out by means of a Markov model. Both the outcomes (QALYs) and the costs were discounted by 3.5%. The time horizon adopted in the model was 10 years. The point of view of the analysis was that of the Italian national health service.
resultsThe tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC)/rilpivirine (RPV) single-tablet regimen (STR) (€7,417.00) revealed the lowest mean treatment cost. TDF/FTC + raltegravir (RAL) showed a better quality of life (0.906 QALY/year), followed by TDF/FTC/RPV (STR; 0.900 QALY/year), TDF/FTC + RPV (multipill regimen) (0.889 QALY/year), and TDF/FTC + atazanavir (ATV/r) (0.886 QALY/year). TDF/FTC/RPV (STR) appeared to be the most cost-effective therapeutic choice (€13,655.00), followed by TDF/FTC + RPV (multipill regimen) (€15,803.00), and TDF/FTC + efavirenz (EFV) (€16,181.00). The sensitivity analysis on the main variables confirmed the validity of the base case scenario.
conclusionSTR (TDF/FTC/RPV) is the most cost-effective treatment strategy compared with the other therapeutic regimens recommended by the Italian guidelines for the treatment of naïve patients with a viral load <100,000 copies/mL. The inclusion of adverse-event management of HIV-infected patients affects the cost-effectiveness ratio of all HAART regimens.
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.