IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/2002923365-366_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of nevirapine toxicity on choice of perinatal HIV prevention strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Stringer, J.S.A.
  • Sinkala, M.
  • Rouse, D.J.
  • Goldenberg, R.L.
  • Vermund, S.H.

Abstract

Objectives. This study evaluated the validity of concerns about the toxicity of nevirapine (NVP) that have delayed its implementation as a perinatal HIV prevention strategy. Methods. A decision analysis model compared 3 strategies: single-dose NVP, short-course zidovudine (ZDV), and no intervention. Results. NVP would prevent more deaths than ZDV and no intervention as long as the rate of NVP toxicity did not exceed, respectively, 9 times that observed in the earlier NVP clinical trial and 42 times that observed in the clinical trial. NVP would be economically preferable to ZDV as long as the rate of toxicity did not exceed 22 times that observed in the clinical trial. Conclusions. Field implementation of NVP should not be delayed by concerns about its toxicity.

Suggested Citation

  • Stringer, J.S.A. & Sinkala, M. & Rouse, D.J. & Goldenberg, R.L. & Vermund, S.H., 2002. "Effect of nevirapine toxicity on choice of perinatal HIV prevention strategies," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(3), pages 365-366.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2002:92:3:365-366_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2002:92:3:365-366_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.