ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2020
Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00928187 (Multicentric, Non-inferiority, Randomized, Non-blinded Phase 3 Trial Comparing Virological Response at 48 Weeks of 3 Antiretroviral Treatment Regimens in HIV-1-infected Patients With Treatment Failure After 1st Line Antiretroviral Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Multicentric, Non-inferiority, Randomized, Non-blinded Phase 3 Trial Comparing Virological Response at 48 Weeks of 3 Antiretroviral Treatment Regimens in HIV-1-infected Patients With Treatment Failure After 1st Line Antiretroviral Therapy (Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Senegal)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Simulation modeling for the design and evaluation of HIV drug resistance interventions: a systematic review of literature.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Test-and-Treat Strategies to Reduce the Antibiotic Prescription Rate for Acute Febrile Illness in Primary Healthcare Clinics in Africa.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Article
- Cost-Utility Analysis of a Dolutegravir-Based Versus Low-Dose Efavirenz-Based Regimen for the Initial Treatment of HIV-Infected Patients in Cameroon (NAMSAL ANRS 12313 Trial).PharmacoEconomics · 2021Article
- Clinical Trials of Broadly Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention: A Review.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile dolutegravir has been added by WHO as a preferred second-line option for the treatment of HIV infection, boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based regimens are still needed as alternative second-line options. Identifying optimal bPI-based second-line combinations is essential, given associated high costs and funding constraints in low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of three alternative bPI-based second-line regimens in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal.
methodsWe used data collected over 2010-2015 in the 2LADY trial/post-trial cohort. Patients with first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC LPV/r; arm A), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (arm B), or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (arm C). Costs (US dollars, 2016), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each country over 24 months of follow-up and extrapolated to 5 years using a simulated patient-level Markov model. We assessed uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, scenarios and prices threshold analysis.
resultsIn each country, over 24 months, arm A was significantly less costly than arms B and C (incremental costs ranging from US$410-$US721 and US$468-US$546 for B and C vs A, respectively) and offered similar health benefits (incremental QALY: - 0.138 to 0.023 and - 0.179 to 0.028, respectively). Over 5 years, arm A remained the least costly, health benefits not being significantly different between arms. Compared with arms B and C, in each study country, Arm A had a ≥ 95% probability of being cost-effective for a large range of cost-effectiveness thresholds, irrespective of the scenario considered.
conclusionsUsing TDF/FTC LPV/r as a bPI-based second-line regimen provided the best economic value in the three study countries.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00928187.
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.