Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30515303›Full record

ArticleJournal of virus eradication2018

Is pricing of dolutegravir equitable? A comparative analysis of price and country income level in 52 countries.

Joel Sim, Andrew Hill

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of virus eradication, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

2 authors.

Joel SimFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Andrew HillDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDifferences in marketed prices of antiretrovirals raises questions about the fairness of pricing medicines of significant public health importance such as dolutegravir (DTG). In view of the reduced prices of generically available efavirenz (EFV), there is a need to determine if previous conclusions on DTG's cost-effectiveness need to be re-assessed.

methodsLowest list prices of DTG were extracted from national drug price or reimbursement databases for 52 countries. Price was recorded as US$ per person-year (ppy). We compared the price of DTG to minimum costs of production and reduced prices of EFV, as well as assessed the correlation with gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and HIV epidemic size in three income classification groups ('high', 'upper middle-income', 'lower middle or low-income').

resultsAnnual prices of DTG ranged from $27 per person-year in Georgia to $20,130 in the USA. Within each income group, there was no observable relationship between DTG prices, GDP per capita and HIV epidemic size. Median price in countries excluded from voluntary licensing agreements ($8718) was >140 times higher than countries included ($60). Price of DTG was >500% higher than EFV in many countries. Three full economic evaluations from high-income settings that compared DTG against EFV all used branded drug prices of EFV-based regimens as cost inputs to evaluate DTG's cost-effectiveness.

conclusionsThis study highlights the wide disparity in prices of DTG across countries, even when segregated by similar income levels. The cost-effectiveness of DTG versus EFV should be re-evaluated now that low-cost generic EFV has become widely available.

Indexed as

dolutegravir, efavirenz, price, costs, cost-effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID30515303
PMCPMC6248837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.