BACKGROUND: As antiretroviral therapy is increasingly used in settings with limited resources, key questions about the timing of treatment and use of diagnostic tests to guide clinical decisions must be addressed. METHODS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for a cohort of adults in Côte d'Ivoire who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (mean age, 33 years; CD4 cell count, 331 per cubic millimeter; HIV RNA level, 5.3 log copies per milliliter). Using a computer-based simulation model that incorporates the CD4 cell count and HIV RNA level as predictors of disease progression, we compared the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with no treatment, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis alone, antiretroviral therapy alone, and prophylaxis with antiretroviral therapy. RESULTS: Undiscounted gains in life expectancy ranged from 10.7 months with antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis initiated on the basis of clinical criteria to 45.9 months with antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis initiated on the basis of CD4 testing and clinical criteria, as compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis alone. The incremental cost per year of life gained was 240 dollars (in 2002 U.S. dollars) for prophylaxis alone, 620 dollars for antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis without CD4 testing, and 1,180 dollars for antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis with CD4 testing, each compared with the next least expensive strategy. None of the strategies that used antiretroviral therapy alone were as cost-effective as those that also used trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis. Life expectancy was increased by 30% with use of a second line of antiretroviral therapy after failure of the first-line regimen. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy, with the use of clinical criteria alone or in combination with CD4 testing to guide the timing of treatment, is an economically attractive health investment in settings with limited resources. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
BACKGROUND: As antiretroviral therapy is increasingly used in settings with limited resources, key questions about the timing of treatment and use of diagnostic tests to guide clinical decisions must be addressed. METHODS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for a cohort of adults in Côte d'Ivoire who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (mean age, 33 years; CD4 cell count, 331 per cubic millimeter; HIV RNA level, 5.3 log copies per milliliter). Using a computer-based simulation model that incorporates the CD4 cell count and HIV RNA level as predictors of disease progression, we compared the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with no treatment, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis alone, antiretroviral therapy alone, and prophylaxis with antiretroviral therapy. RESULTS: Undiscounted gains in life expectancy ranged from 10.7 months with antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis initiated on the basis of clinical criteria to 45.9 months with antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis initiated on the basis of CD4 testing and clinical criteria, as compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis alone. The incremental cost per year of life gained was 240 dollars (in 2002 U.S. dollars) for prophylaxis alone, 620 dollars for antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis without CD4 testing, and 1,180 dollars for antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis with CD4 testing, each compared with the next least expensive strategy. None of the strategies that used antiretroviral therapy alone were as cost-effective as those that also used trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis. Life expectancy was increased by 30% with use of a second line of antiretroviral therapy after failure of the first-line regimen. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy, with the use of clinical criteria alone or in combination with CD4 testing to guide the timing of treatment, is an economically attractive health investment in settings with limited resources. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Authors: Nuala McGrath; Katharina Kranzer; Jacqueline Saul; Amelia C Crampin; Simon Malema; Lackson Kachiwanda; Basia Zaba; Andreas Jahn; Paul Em Fine; Judith R Glynn Journal: AIDS Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Rochelle P Walensky; Milton C Weinstein; Yazdan Yazdanpanah; Elena Losina; Lauren M Mercincavage; Siaka Touré; Nomita Divi; Xavier Anglaret; Sue J Goldie; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: AIDS Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Rochelle P Walensky; Eric L Ross; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; Robin Wood; Farzad Noubary; A David Paltiel; Yoriko M Nakamura; Sheela V Godbole; Ravindre Panchia; Ian Sanne; Milton C Weinstein; Elena Losina; Kenneth H Mayer; Ying Q Chen; Lei Wang; Marybeth McCauley; Theresa Gamble; George R Seage; Myron S Cohen; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eran Bendavid; Sean D Young; David A Katzenstein; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Gillian D Sanders; Douglas K Owens Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-09-22
Authors: Elliot Marseille; James G Kahn; Christian Pitter; Rebecca Bunnell; William Epalatai; Emmanuel Jawe; Willy Were; Jonathan Mermin Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Eran Bendavid; Robin Wood; David A Katzenstein; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Douglas K Owens Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Pamela P Pei; Milton C Weinstein; X Cynthia Li; Michael D Hughes; A David Paltiel; Taige Hou; Robert A Parker; Melanie R Gaynes; Paul E Sax; Kenneth A Freedberg; Bruce R Schackman; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: HIV Clin Trials Date: 2015-12-11