| Literature DB >> 29026324 |
Umberto Restelli1,2, Massimiliano Fabbiani3, Simona Di Giambenedetto3, Carmela Nappi4, Davide Croce1,2.
Abstract
Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29026324 PMCID: PMC5627749 DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S143377
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res ISSN: 1178-6981
Figure 1Structure of the budget impact model.
Note: aOther ART 1: 100% TDF/FTC/c/EVG. bOther ART 2: 28.6% TDF/FTC+RAL; 14.3% ABC/3TC/DTG; 14.3% TDF/FTC/c/EVG; 14.3% 3TC/DTG; 14.3% ABC/3TC/NVP; 14.3% ABC/3TC/DRV+r. cOther ART 3: 25% TDF/FTC/RPV; 25% ABC/3TC/DRV+r; 50% DRV+r.
Abbreviations: 3TC, lamivudine; ABC, abacavir; ART, antiretroviral therapy; ATV, atazanavir; c, cobicistat; DRV, darunavir; DTG, dolutegravir; EVG, elvitegravir; FTC, emtricitabine; NRTI, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor; NVP, nevirapine; r, ritonavir; RAL, Raltegravir; RPV, rilpivirine; TDF, tenofovir.
Results of the budget impact analysis
| Scenario | Annual cost (million €)
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | Total | |
| Base case | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 16.6 | 82.0 |
| Scenario 1 | 12.6 | 11.2 | 10.7 | 10.6 | 10.6 | 55.6 |
| Difference between scenario 1 and base case (% impact) | −3.6 (−22.1%) | −5.1 (−31.5%) | −5.7 (−35.0%) | −5.9 (−35.9%) | −5.9 (−35.9%) | −26.3 (−32.1%) |
| Scenario 2 | 13.8 | 12.5 | 11.8 | 11.4 | 11.3 | 60.8 |
| Difference between scenario 2 and base case (% impact) | −2.4 (−14.7%) | −3.8 (−23.3%) | −4.6 (−28.0%) | −5.0 (−30.6%) | −5.3 (−32.0%) | −21.1 (−25.8%) |
| Scenario 3 | 14.7 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 13.0 | 12.7 | 67.7 |
| Difference between scenario 3 and base case (% impact) | −1.4 (−8.8%) | −2.4 (−14.8%) | −3.1 (−18.6%) | −3.5 (−21.3%) | −3.8 (−23.2%) | −14.2 (−17.4%) |