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: Economics of switching to second-line antiretroviral therapy with lopinavir/ritonavir in Africa: estimates based on DART trial results and costs for Uganda and Kenya.
    Author: Simpson KN, Baran RW, Kirbach SE, Dietz B.
    Journal: Value Health; 2011 Dec; 14(8):1048-54. PubMed ID: 22152173.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Substantial immunological improvement has been reported for HIV-infected patients who switch from a failing regimen to a protease inhibitor regimen with Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). We use decision analysis modeling to estimate health and economic consequences expected from this switch. METHODS: A Markov model combined best evidence for CD4(+) T-cell response, infectious disease events, death rates, and quality of life for African populations with Kenyan and Ugandan data on drug and medical care costs. We estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of switching to an LPV/r-based regimen versus remaining on a failed first antiretroviral (ARV) regimen or discontinuing all ARV drugs. The model assumes concurrent use of cotrimoxazole, and 4% annual loss to follow-up. Local effects due to prevalence of malaria and tuberculosis are included in the model. Sensitivity analysis examines the effects of varying disease, ARV therapy and CD4(+) T-cell cost, and ART discontinuation assumptions. RESULTS: The base model estimates an improvement of 20 months in average survival for the LPV/r group. The respective LPV/r ICER for Kenya is $1483 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) compared to $1673/QALY for Uganda. The ICERs increase to $1517 and $1707, respectively, if CD4(+) T-cell tests cost $25. The model comparing switching to LPV/r to discontinuing all ARV drugs decreases both costs and benefits proportionally for the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The estimates are clearly below the most stringent World Health Organization benchmark for cost-effectiveness for Kenya and within the acceptable range of cost-effectiveness for Uganda. Thus, the switch to second-line therapy with LPV/r in these countries appears to be a cost-effective use of resources.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]