IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0057777.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Utility Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir versus Atazanavir + Ritonavir Administered as First-Line Therapy for the Treatment of HIV Infection in Italy: From Randomised Trial to Real World

Author

Listed:
  • Emanuela Foglia
  • Paolo Bonfanti
  • Giuliano Rizzardini
  • Erminio Bonizzoni
  • Umberto Restelli
  • Elena Ricci
  • Emanuele Porazzi
  • Francesca Scolari
  • Davide Croce

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the lifetime cost utility of two antiretroviral regimens (once-daily atazanavir plus ritonavir [ATV+r] versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/r]) in Italian human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients naïve to treatment. Design: With this observational retrospective study we collected the clinical data of a cohort of HIV-infected patients receiving first-line treatment with LPV/r or ATV+r. Methodology: A Markov microsimulation model including direct costs and health outcomes of first- and second-line highly active retroviral therapy was developed from a third-party (Italian National Healthcare Service) payer’s perspective. Health and monetary outcomes associated with the long-term use of ATV+r and LPV/r regimens were evaluated on the basis of eight health states, incidence of diarrhoea and hyperbilirubinemia, AIDS events, opportunistic infections, coronary heart disease events and, for the first time in an economic evaluation, chronic kidney disease (CKD) events. In order to account for possible deviations between real-life data and randomised controlled trial results, a second control arm (ATV+r 2) was created with differential transition probabilities taken from the literature. Results: The average survival was 24.061 years for patients receiving LPV/r, 24.081 and 24.084 for those receiving ATV+r 1 and 2 respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for the patients receiving LPV/r than those receiving ATV+r (13.322 vs. 13.060 and 13.261 for ATV+r 1 and 2). The cost-utility values were 15,310.56 for LPV/r, 15,902.99 and 15,524.85 for ATV+r 1 and 2. Conclusions: Using real-life data, the model produced significantly different results compared with other studies. With the innovative addition of an evaluation of CKD events, the model showed a cost-utility value advantage for twice-daily LPV/r over once-daily ATV+r, thus providing evidence for its continued use in the treatment of HIV.

Suggested Citation

  • Emanuela Foglia & Paolo Bonfanti & Giuliano Rizzardini & Erminio Bonizzoni & Umberto Restelli & Elena Ricci & Emanuele Porazzi & Francesca Scolari & Davide Croce, 2013. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir versus Atazanavir + Ritonavir Administered as First-Line Therapy for the Treatment of HIV Infection in Italy: From Randomised Trial to Real World," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0057777
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057777
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057777&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0057777?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0057777. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.