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

    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)

    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.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.