IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i4d10.1007_s41669-019-0130-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)

Author

Listed:
  • Osvaldo Ulises Garay

    (Aix Marseille University)

  • Marie Libérée Nishimwe

    (Aix Marseille University)

  • Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah

    (Aix Marseille University
    ORS PACA, Observatoire Régional de la Santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur)

  • Asmaa Janah

    (Aix Marseille University)

  • Pierre-Marie Girard

    (AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Antoine)

  • Geneviève Chêne

    (University of Bordeaux, ISPED
    CHU Bordeaux, Division of Public Health)

  • Laetitia Moinot

    (University of Bordeaux, ISPED)

  • Luis Sagaon-Teyssier

    (Aix Marseille University
    ORS PACA, Observatoire Régional de la Santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur)

  • Jean-Luc Meynard

    (AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Antoine)

  • Bruno Spire

    (Aix Marseille University)

  • Sylvie Boyer

    (Aix Marseille University)

Abstract

Background Protease inhibitor monotherapy is a simplified treatment strategy for virally suppressed HIV-positive patients that has the potential for cost savings, as fewer drugs are used than with combination therapy. However, evidence for its economic value is limited. Objectives We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy followed by treatment intensification in case of viral load rebound versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial. Methods DREAM was conducted in 36 French Hospitals between 2009 and 2013. For each treatment strategy, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted mean costs (in €, year 2010 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, as well as incremental costs and QALYs per patient. We then assessed uncertainty using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, scenario analyses and cost-effectiveness price-threshold (CEPT) analysis. Results In the base-case analysis considering 2009–2013 antiretroviral drug (ARV) prices, adjusted incremental costs and QALYs were − €3296 (95% confidence interval [CI] − 5202 to − 1391) and 0.006 (95% CI − 0.021 to 0.033), respectively, over 2 years, suggesting that monotherapy was cost-effective with a probability of 100% at various cost-effectiveness thresholds. In scenario analyses considering 2018 ARV prices, monotherapy remained cost-effective but with a lower probability (94% vs. 100% in the base-case analysis). The current price of cART would have to decrease by 34% to be cost-effective with a probability of 95%. Conclusion Monotherapy appears to be cost-effective compared with cART for virologically suppressed HIV-positive patients in France. CEPT analysis is a useful tool to identify the preferred strategy to adopt given that ARV prices change rapidly. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595.

Suggested Citation

  • Osvaldo Ulises Garay & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Asmaa Janah & Pierre-Marie Girard & Geneviève Chêne & Laetitia Moinot & Luis Sagaon-Teyssier & Jean-Luc Meynard & Bruno Spire &, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 505-515, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0130-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0130-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0130-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-019-0130-7?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glick, Henry A. & Doshi, Jalpa A. & Sonnad, Seema S. & Polsky, Daniel, 2014. "Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199685028.
    2. Mickael Löthgren & Niklas Zethraeus, 2000. "Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(7), pages 623-630, October.
    3. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    4. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Juan Oliva-Moreno, 2014. "Economic impact of HIV/AIDS: a systematic review in five European countries," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Manning, Willard G. & Mullahy, John, 2001. "Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 461-494, July.
    6. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tessier, Philippe & Wolff, François-Charles, 2024. "On the ability of the SF-6D to capture the consequences of chronic illnesses on subjective well-being: Evidence from France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 354(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    2. Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Tamara Tovar-Sanchez & Martial Lantche Wandji & Mireille Mpoudi-Etame & Gwenaëlle Maradan & Pierrette Omgba Bassega & Marie Varloteaux & Alice Montoyo, 2021. "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, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 331-343, March.
    3. Carlo Lazzaro & Cecile van Steen & Florent Aptel & Cedric Schweitzer & Luigi Angelillo, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in Fr," Post-Print hal-03696350, HAL.
    4. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    5. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    6. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa, 2022. "Estimating Value-Based Price and Quantifying Uncertainty around It in Health Technology Assessment: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 672-683, July.
    7. Sara Kaveh & Nashmil Ghadimi & Amirhossein Zarei Alvar & Kamran Roudini & Rajabali Daroudi, 2024. "Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in HER2-positive gastric cancer treatment in Iran: a cost-effectiveness analysis," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    9. Joseph Kwon & Ruairidh Milne & Clare Rayner & Román Rocha Lawrence & Jordan Mullard & Ghazala Mir & Brendan Delaney & Manoj Sivan & Stavros Petrou, 2024. "Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1095-1115, September.
    10. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    11. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    12. Caroline S. Clarke & Mariya Melnychuk & Angus I. G. Ramsay & Cecilia Vindrola-Padros & Claire Levermore & Ravi Barod & Axel Bex & John Hines & Muntzer M. Mughal & Kathy Pritchard-Jones & Maxine Tran &, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 905-917, November.
    13. Kasper M. Johannesen & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher & Allan J. Wailoo, 2018. "How to design the cost‐effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 41-54, February.
    14. Edward Cox & Simon Walker & Charlotte L. Edwardson & Stuart J. H. Biddle & Alexandra M. Clarke-Cornwell & Stacy A. Clemes & Melanie J. Davies & David W. Dunstan & Helen Eborall & Malcolm H. Granat & L, 2022. "The Cost-Effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life Intervention for Reducing Sitting Time," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-14, November.
    15. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    16. Tom L. Drake & Yoel Lubell, 2017. "Malaria and Economic Evaluation Methods: Challenges and Opportunities," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 291-297, June.
    17. Eric Kaun Santos Silva & June Alisson Westarb Cruz & Maria Alexandra Viegas Cortez Cunha & Thyago Proença Moraes & Sandro Marques & Eduardo Damião Silva, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness in health: consolidated research and contemporary challenges," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Hill, Sarah R. & Vale, Luke & Hunter, David & Henderson, Emily & Oluboyede, Yemi, 2017. "Economic evaluations of alcohol prevention interventions: Is the evidence sufficient? A review of methodological challenges," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1249-1262.
    19. Devin Incerti & Jeffrey R. Curtis & Jason Shafrin & Darius N. Lakdawalla & Jeroen P. Jansen, 2019. "A Flexible Open-Source Decision Model for Value Assessment of Biologic Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 829-843, June.
    20. Seghieri, Chiara & Berta, Paolo & Nuti, Sabina, 2019. "Geographic variation in inpatient costs for Acute Myocardial Infarction care: Insights from Italy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(5), pages 449-456.

    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:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0130-7. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.