ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025
Health Economics Evaluation of Bictegravir/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir for a First-Line Treatment of HIV-1 Infection in China.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the economic value of Bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir (B/F/TAF) as a first-line treatment for HIV-1 infection in China, where such evaluations are currently lacking. Patients and Methods: We developed a monthly-cycle Markov model to evaluate the economics of B/F/TAF versus dolutegravir/lamivudine (DTG/3TC) as a first-line ART for adult HIV-1 patients over a lifelong time. The social costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) have been analyzed using health economic methods. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the result validation. Taking into account the transmissibility of HIV, we have developed a scenario within a dynamic model across the entire population in China, to conduct a health economic evaluation of the two drugs over 30 years. Model precision was tested using relative standard deviation (RSD). Results: In the Markov model, B/F/TAF had higher per-person costs compared to DTG/3TC ($44,381.33 vs $42,160.13), but also resulted in greater QALYs (11.6771 vs 11.5389), leading to a per-person INMB of $3072.26 (WTP = 3GDP) and an ICER of $16,052.42 per QALY. Uncertainty analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. The dynamic model further indicated that B/F/TAF was both cost-benefit and cost-effective, with a per-person INMB of $7.33 (WTP = 3GDP) and an ICER of $7,953.72 per QALY, although it exhibited a higher RSD. Conclusion: After adopting the B/F/TAF regimen in China, the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention and treatment have significantly improved. We should advocate for B/F/TAF as the first-line treatment to enhance HIV management.
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.