Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30161205›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Short-term cost analysis of raltegravir versus atazanavir + ritonavir or darunavir + ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States.

Anita J Brogan, Ashley E Davis, Bridgett Goodwin

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. 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

3 authors.

Anita J BroganRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9003-994X
Ashley E DavisRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States of America.
Bridgett GoodwinMerck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

methodsNinety-six-week costs for antiretroviral drugs, adverse event management, and HIV care for individuals initiating RAL, ATV/r, or DRV/r as first-line therapy for HIV-1 infection were estimated using an economic model. Efficacy and safety data (mean CD4 cell count changes, discontinuation rates, grade 3/4 adverse event incidence) for each regimen through 96 weeks of treatment were taken from the ACTG 5257 clinical trial. Antiretroviral drug costs for each initial regimen and for each substitution regimen, as used by individuals who discontinued their initial regimen, were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Adverse event management costs and HIV care costs, stratified by CD4 cell count range, were taken from published sources and inflated to 2016 dollars. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Cost outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0%.

resultsTotal 96-week costs were $81,231 for RAL, $88,064 for ATV/r, and $87,680 for DRV/r, where differences were primarily due to lower antiretroviral drug costs for RAL than for ATV/r or DRV/r. These results were found to be robust in scenario and sensitivity analyses.

conclusionsRelative to the DRV/r and ATV/r regimens, the RAL regimen had the lowest cost for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States.

Indexed as

HIV-1AdultAnti-HIV AgentsAtazanavir SulfateCost-Benefit AnalysisDarunavirDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHealth Care CostsHIV InfectionsHumansMaleModels, EconomicRaltegravir PotassiumRitonavirUnited StatesAnti-HIV AgentsAtazanavir SulfateDarunavirRaltegravir PotassiumRitonavir

Identifiers

PMID30161205
PMCPMC6117059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.