These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost-effectiveness analysis of lopinavir/ritonavir and atazanavir+ritonavir regimens in the CASTLE study.
    Author: Simpson KN, Rajagopalan R, Dietz B.
    Journal: Adv Ther; 2009 Feb; 26(2):185-93. PubMed ID: 19219410.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis comparing lopinavir with ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) for antiretroviral-naïve patients with a baseline CD4+ T-cell distribution and total cholesterol (TC) profile as reported in the CASTLE study. METHODS: This decision analysis study used a previously published Markov model of HIV disease, incorporating coronary heart disease (CHD) events to compare the short- and long-term budget impacts and CHD consequences expected for the two regimens. RESULTS: Patients were assumed to have a baseline CHD risk of 4.6% (based on demographic data) and it was also assumed that 50% of the population in the CASTLE study were smokers. The CHD risk differences (based on percent of patients with TC >240 mg/dL) in favor of ATV+RTV resulted in an average improvement in life expectancy of 0.031 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (11 days), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,409,734/QALY. Use of the LPV/r regimen saved $24,518 and $36,651 at 5 and 10 years, respectively, with lifetime cost savings estimated at $38,490. A sensitivity analysis using a cohort of all smokers on antihypertensive medication estimated an average improvement in life expectancy of 31 quality-adjusted days in favor of ATV+RTV, and a cost-effectiveness ratio of $520,861/QALY: a ratio that is still above the acceptable limit within the US. CONCLUSION: The use of an LPV/r-based regimen in antiretroviral-naïve patients with a baseline CHD risk similar to patients in the CASTLE study appears to be a more cost-effective use of resources compared with an ATV+RTV-based regimen. The very small added CHD risk predicted by LPV/r treatment is more than offset by the substantial short- and long-term cost savings expected with the use of LPV/r in antiretroviral-naïve individuals with average to moderately elevated CHD risk.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]