IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0323167.html

Impact of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide on health-related quality of life and economic outcomes in HIV care: Substudy of the BIC-NOW clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio Sequera-Arquelladas
  • María J Vivancos
  • David Vinuesa
  • Antonio Collado
  • Ignacio De Los Santos
  • Patricia Sorni
  • Noemi Cabello-Clotet
  • Marta Montero
  • Carlos Ramos Font
  • Alberto Terron
  • Maria José Galindo
  • Onofre Martinez
  • Pablo Ryan
  • Mohamed Omar-Mohamed
  • Helena Albendín-Iglesias
  • Rosario Javier
  • Alberto Romero
  • Coral García Vallecillos
  • Miguel Ángel Calleja
  • Carmen Hidalgo-Tenorio

Abstract

Background: The BICNOW clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness, safety, satisfaction, adherence to treatment, and retention in the system of a rapid initiation strategy with bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) in naïve HIV-infected individuals. It also assessed the burden of this infection on individuals and healthcare systems using various instruments, participant questionnaires, and pharmacoeconomic evaluations of this antiretroviral therapy (ART). This substudy focused on changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of participants and on the economic impact of this rapid initiation strategy. Methods and Findings: Patients were recruited for this phase IV, multicenter, open, single-branch clinical trial with 48-week follow-up between November 2020 and July 2022. HRQoL data were gathered using EQ-5D-3L and dichotomized HIV-SI questionnaires. In the cost-utility pharmacoeconomic analysis, data in the literature were used for comparators. The 208 participants had a mean age of 34 (27–44) years, 87·5% were male, 42·9% had completed higher education, and 67·1% were employed. The mean EQ-5D questionnaire score was significantly increased at 48 weeks versus baseline (0·940 ± 0·117 vs. 0·959 ± 0·083, p = 0·012), and the utility value in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 0·877 ± 0·093. There was a significant improvement in the “usual activities” dimension (10·8 vs 4·1% p = 0·036). The Moses extreme reaction test showed a significant difference in all dimensions between participants in AIDS versus non-AIDS stage (p

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Sequera-Arquelladas & María J Vivancos & David Vinuesa & Antonio Collado & Ignacio De Los Santos & Patricia Sorni & Noemi Cabello-Clotet & Marta Montero & Carlos Ramos Font & Alberto Terron & M, 2025. "Impact of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide on health-related quality of life and economic outcomes in HIV care: Substudy of the BIC-NOW clinical trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(9), pages 1-12, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0323167
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323167
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323167&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0323167?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. Xavier Badia & Montserrat Roset & Michael Herdman & Paul Kind, 2001. "A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 7-16, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.
    3. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    4. Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Antonio Sampayo, 2025. "Comparison of Caregiver and General Population Preferences for Dependency-Related Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 105-117, January.
    5. Mathieu F. Janssen & Ines Buchholz & Dominik Golicki & Gouke J. Bonsel, 2022. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L Over Time? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Responsiveness of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Nine Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1081-1093, November.
    6. Mathieu F. Janssen & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1467-1475, December.
    7. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Maureen Rutten-van Mölken & Jan Oostenbrink & Marc Miravitlles & Brigitta Monz, 2007. "Modelling the 5-year cost effectiveness of tiotropium, salmeterol and ipratropium for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 123-135, June.
    9. Adrian Bagust & Sophie Beale, 2005. "Modelling EuroQol health‐related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE‐2 data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 217-230, March.
    10. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh, 2021. "Bayesian modeling of health state preferences: could borrowing strength from existing countries’ valuations produce better estimates," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 773-788, July.
    11. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    12. Arne Risa Hole & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 212-224, February.
    13. Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kuhan Perampaladas & Kathryn Gaebel & Brett Doble & Feng Xie, 2015. "Between-country heterogeneity in EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithms: how much is due to differences in health state selection?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 847-855, November.
    14. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    15. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    16. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    17. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    18. Roxana Paola Palacios-Cartagena & Jose Carmelo Adsuar & Miguel Ángel Hernández-Mocholí & Jorge Carlos-Vivas & Sabina Barrios-Fernández & Miguel Angel Garcia-Gordillo & María Mendoza-Muñoz, 2021. "Health-Related Quality of Life Norm Data of the Peruvian Adolescents: Results Using the EQ-5D-Y," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-9, August.
    19. Abeer Rabayah & Bram Roudijk & Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Fanni Rencz & Saad Jaddoua & Uwe Siebert, 2025. "Valuation of the EQ-5D-3L in Jordan," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(3), pages 487-501, April.
    20. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.

    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:pone00:0323167. 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: 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.