IDEAS home Printed from
   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)


  • 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)


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 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

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    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

    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, Decembrie.
    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, Decembrie.
    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, Decembrie.
    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. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    2. Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Tamara Tovar-Sanchez & Martial Lantche Wandji & Mireille Mpoudi-Etame & Gwenaëlle Maradan & Pierrette Omgba Bassega & Marie Varloteaux & Alice Montoyo, 2021. "Cost-Utility Analysis of a Dolutegravir-Based Versus Low-Dose Efavirenz-Based Regimen for the Initial Treatment of HIV-Infected Patients in Cameroon (NAMSAL ANRS 12313 Trial)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 331-343, March.
    3. Carlo Lazzaro & Cecile van Steen & Florent Aptel & Cedric Schweitzer & Luigi Angelillo, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in Fr," Post-Print hal-03696350, HAL.
    4. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    5. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    6. Theresa Tawiah & Kristian Schultz Hansen & Frank Baiden & Jane Bruce & Mathilda Tivura & Rupert Delimini & Seeba Amengo-Etego & Daniel Chandramohan & Seth Owusu-Agyei & Jayne Webster, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Test-Based versus Presumptive Treatment of Uncomplicated Malaria in Children under Five Years in an Area of High Transmission in Central Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    8. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    9. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa, 2022. "Estimating Value-Based Price and Quantifying Uncertainty around It in Health Technology Assessment: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 672-683, July.
    10. Amr Makady & Ard Veelen & Páll Jonsson & Owen Moseley & Anne D’Andon & Anthonius Boer & Hans Hillege & Olaf Klungel & Wim Goettsch, 2018. "Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 359-368, March.
    11. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    12. Charles Yan & Jeff Round & Ilke Akpinar & Chantal E. Atwood & Lesly Deuchar & Mohit Bhutani & Richard Leigh & Michael K. Stickland, 2023. "Cost Analysis of a Transition Care Bundle Compared with Usual Care for COPD Patients Being Discharged from Hospital: Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 493-505, May.
    13. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Ezeofor Victory & Edwards T. Rhiannon & Burnside Girvan & Adair Pauline & Pine M. Cynthia, 2022. "Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the Dental RECUR Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial: Evaluating a Goal-oriented Talking Intervention to Prevent Reoccurrence of Dental Caries in Children," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 431-445, May.
    15. Astrid Van Muylder & Thomas D’Hooghe & Jeroen Luyten, 2023. "Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 973-991, October.
    16. Alec Morton & Amanda I. Adler & David Bell & Andrew Briggs & Werner Brouwer & Karl Claxton & Neil Craig & Alastair Fischer & Peter McGregor & Pieter van Baal, 2016. "Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 933-938, August.
    17. Xiao Zang & Emanuel Krebs & Linwei Wang & Brandon D. L. Marshall & Reuben Granich & Bruce R. Schackman & Julio S. G. Montaner & Bohdan Nosyk, 2019. "Structural Design and Data Requirements for Simulation Modelling in HIV/AIDS: A Narrative Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1219-1239, October.
    18. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    19. Caroline S. Clarke & Mariya Melnychuk & Angus I. G. Ramsay & Cecilia Vindrola-Padros & Claire Levermore & Ravi Barod & Axel Bex & John Hines & Muntzer M. Mughal & Kathy Pritchard-Jones & Maxine Tran &, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 905-917, November.
    20. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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.

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.