AIDS (London, England) · 2021
Cost and cost-effectiveness of dolutegravir-based antiretroviral regimens: an economic evaluation of a clinical trial.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jamieson Lise, Serenata Celicia, Makhubele Lebogang, Sokhela Simiso, Mashabane Nkuli, Akpomiemie Godspower, Johnson Leigh F, Venter Willem D F, Meyer-Rath Gesine
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: HIV programmes world-wide currently make decisions regarding new antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens with less side-effects and higher resistance barriers, which may improve adherence and viral suppression. Economic evaluation helps inform these decisions.
METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation of three ART regimens included in the ADVANCE trial from the provider's perspective: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC)+dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC+DTG, compared with TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV). We used top-down and bottom-up cost analysis with resource utilization based on trial data and adjusted to emulate routine care. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of each regimen as cost per person virally suppressed or retained and per life-year saved, at 48 and 96 weeks.
RESULTS: Though the DTG-based trial arms were 2% more costly than TDF/FTC/EFV, both had slightly lower cost-per-outcome ($9783 and $9929/patient virally suppressed for TDF/FTC+DTG and TAF/FTC+DTG, respectively) than TDF/FTC/EFV ($10 365). The trial cost per additional virally suppressed patient, compared with TDF/FTC/EFV, was lower in the TDF/FTC+DTG arm ($2967) compared with TAF/FTC+DTG ($3430). In routine care, cost per virally suppressed patient was estimated as similar between TDF/FTC+DTG ($426) and TDF/FTC/EFV ($424) but more costly under TAF/FTC+DTG. Similar results were seen in the cost per additional person retained across scenarios. When modelled over 20 years, TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective than TAF/FTC+DTG ($10 341 vs $41 958/life-year saved).
CONCLUSION: TDF/FTC+DTG had similar costs per outcome as TDF/FTC/EFV in the routine care scenario but TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective when modelled over 20 years.
METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation of three ART regimens included in the ADVANCE trial from the provider's perspective: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC)+dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC+DTG, compared with TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV). We used top-down and bottom-up cost analysis with resource utilization based on trial data and adjusted to emulate routine care. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of each regimen as cost per person virally suppressed or retained and per life-year saved, at 48 and 96 weeks.
RESULTS: Though the DTG-based trial arms were 2% more costly than TDF/FTC/EFV, both had slightly lower cost-per-outcome ($9783 and $9929/patient virally suppressed for TDF/FTC+DTG and TAF/FTC+DTG, respectively) than TDF/FTC/EFV ($10 365). The trial cost per additional virally suppressed patient, compared with TDF/FTC/EFV, was lower in the TDF/FTC+DTG arm ($2967) compared with TAF/FTC+DTG ($3430). In routine care, cost per virally suppressed patient was estimated as similar between TDF/FTC+DTG ($426) and TDF/FTC/EFV ($424) but more costly under TAF/FTC+DTG. Similar results were seen in the cost per additional person retained across scenarios. When modelled over 20 years, TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective than TAF/FTC+DTG ($10 341 vs $41 958/life-year saved).
CONCLUSION: TDF/FTC+DTG had similar costs per outcome as TDF/FTC/EFV in the routine care scenario but TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective when modelled over 20 years.