Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efavirenz

A Pharmacoeconomic Review of its Use in HIV Infection

  • Adis Pharmacoeconomic Drug Evaluation
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Abstract

Efavirenz is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) used in the treatment of patients with HIV infection. Both US and British treatment guidelines for HIV infection recommend NNRTI- or protease inhibitor-based combinations [i.e. with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] as first-line treatment options in the management of HIV disease. Results of a pivotal randomised study (DMP 266-006) comparing efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy in patients with HIV infection (the majority of whom were antiretroviral therapy-naive) showed the efavirenz-based regimen was better tolerated and had greater success in achieving reductions in viral load below the limit of detection

These and other clinical data were incorporated into economic models in 2 analyses, one conducted in the US and the other in Canada. The US analysis examined long term clinical and economic outcomes predicted on the basis of response (viral load and CD4+ cell counts), tolerability and willingness to adhere to therapy. The efavirenz-based regimen was the dominant treatment strategy as it was predicted to improve survival and reduce direct medical costs in the US healthcare system. Compared with the indinavir-containing regimen, survival was increased by 11% (absolute difference) and cumulative costs were reduced by $US10 326 per patient (1998 discounted costs) at 5 years after starting treatment with efavirenz-based therapy. The Canadian analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Ontario healthcare system. This study did not consider differences in clinical efficacy between treatment groups, costs of study medication or outcomes beyond 1 year — all factors that would have favoured the efavirenz-based regimen. Of the 2 treatment options, the efavirenz-based regimen was associated with 7.4% lower average annual medical care costs, primarily because of greater costs associated with adverse clinical events with the indinavir-based regimen.

In conclusion, current treatment guidelines for HIV infection recognise efavirenz-based combination regimens as a first-line treatment option. A pivotal comparative clinical trial (DMP 266-006) showed a significantly greater virological response to efavirenz- than indinavir-based triple combination therapy, and the efavirenz-based regimen was better tolerated. These clinical data are supported by pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted in the US and Canada, both of which showed lower medical care costs with the efavirenz-based regimen. The US analysis also predicted long term health benefits, such as improved survival, with efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy. These results must be weighed against the inherent difficulties of predicting long term treatment failure rates from short term data, and the limited number of pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted with efavirenz to date.

Epidemiology and Cost of HIV Infection

An estimated 34.3 million individuals worldwide have HIV infection or AIDS, and estimates for the US range from 650 000 to 900 000. The disease is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and costs. In terms of average lifetime costs of direct medical care, analyses conducted in the US estimated these to be approximately $US300 000 per HIV-infected individual (1996 values). Extrapolating these data, total lifetime costs for all individuals in the US who currently have HIV infection or AIDS would reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and this excludes indirect costs

Costs rise markedly from early to late stages of the disease. Results of one study showed that direct costs ranged from approximately $US93 000 to $US307 000 per patient with HIV infection (year of costing not stated), depending on initial CD4+ cell counts. Along with the monetary costs, it has been estimated that, on average, each 26-year-old HIV-infected patient loses between 9.3 and 11.2 quality adjusted life-years as a result of their disease.

Clinical Profile of Efavirenz

Triple therapy with antiretroviral drug regimens including efavirenz has been shown to reduce viral load and produce immunological improvements in patients with HIV infection. Regimens comprising efavirenz (generally 600mg once daily orally) plus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and/or protease inhibitors have shown efficacy in both antiretroviral therapy—naive and—experienced adults and small numbers of children. Most randomised comparative trials were multicentre and double-blind in design.

In DMP 266-006, the largest comparative trial (which was nonblind), a triple combination of efavirenz 600mg once daily, zidovudine 300mg twice daily plus lamivudine 150mg twice daily produced more marked and durable virological responses than either indinavir 800mg every 8 hours in combination with zidovudine and lamivudine or a dual regimen of efavirenz 600mg once daily plus indinavir 1000mg every 8 hours in adults with HIV infection previously untreated with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), lamivudine or a protease inhibitor. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that a larger proportion of patients in the efavirenz triple therapy group than in the indinavir triple therapy group had HIV RNA levels <50 copies/ml at 48 weeks (64 vs 43%; p < 0.05) and 72 weeks (60 vs 40%; p ≤ 0.05).When the limit of detection for plasma HIV RNA levels was 400 copies/ml (primary end-point of the study), results of intention-to-treat analyses also favoured efavirenz- over indinavir-based triple combination therapy at 48 weeks (70 vs 48%; p < 0.05) and 72 weeks (67 vs 44%; p ≤ 0.05).

Efavirenz appears to be generally well tolerated. In clinical trials, dermatological effects (most notably rash) and CNS symptoms (e.g. headache, dizziness, insomnia and fatigue) were the most common adverse effects associated with efavirenz therapy. These effects were typically mild to moderate in severity and usually resolved within 2 to 3 weeks. In trial DMP 266-006, a greater proportion of patients in the indinavir-containing triple therapy group than in the efavirenz containing triple therapy group discontinued treatment because of adverse events (20.3 vs 6.5%; p < 0.001) or for any reason (43 vs 27%, p = 0.005).

Pharmacoeconomic Analyses of Efavirenz

Two pharmacoeconomic analyses have been conducted on efavirenz, 1 from the US healthcare perspective, the other from the perspective of the Ontario healthcare system in Canada. Although dissimilar in many ways, both were modeled analyses and incorporated key clinical assumptions from a randomised study (DMP 266-006) comparing efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy in patients with HIV infection, the majority of whom were antiretroviral therapy—naive. Importantly, if a simple analysis were undertaken considering only drug acquisition costs and short term results of DMP 266-006, efavirenz would be the dominant agent, and a more complex analysis might seem unnecessary. However, a more sophisticated analysis can explore the possibility that the cost and efficacy advantage of efavirenz versus indinavir may change over time. It also permits exploration of the sensitivity of the estimates

Results of the US analysis, which examined long term clinical and economic outcomes predicted on the basis of response (viral load and CD4+ cell counts), tolerability and willingness to adhere to therapy, showed the efavirenz-based regimen was the dominant treatment strategy in that it improved survival and reduced direct medical costs compared with the indinavir-containing regimen. Analyses were carried out for a time horizon of 5 to 15 years. At 5 years after starting treatment, the efavirenz-based regimen was associated with a cumulative discounted cost saving of $US10 326 per patient (1998 costs) and a better rate of survival (absolute difference 11%) compared with the indinavir-containing regimen. At approximately 13 years after starting medication, the cost differential disappeared and then favoured indinavir-based therapy. This result presumably reflects the survival advantage predicted for efavirenz, resulting in fewer survivors in the indinavir-based treatment group and therefore lower costs in later years. In general, results were robust to reasonable variation in key parameters in the sensitivity analysis, although increasing the indinavir response rate to 140% of the base-case value eliminated the efavirenz survival advantage within 1 year. This may be noteworthy because results of other clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of indinavir-based therapy were generally better than in the key clinical study used in the US model comparing indinavir- and efavirenz-based treatment.

Results of the Canadian analysis (published only as an abstract) also favoured the efavirenz-based regimen in economic terms, although this study did not consider outcomes beyond 1 year and assumed equivalent virological outcomes in the 2 treatment groups. Excluding study drug treatment costs, the efavirenz-based regimen was associated with 7.4% lower average annual medical care costs per patient than the indinavir-based regimen. This difference was primarily the result of higher costs for adverse clinical events with the indinavir-based regimen than with the efavirenz-based regimen (33 vs 24% of total medical care costs). Inclusion of study drug treatment costs, outcomes beyond 1 year and differences in virological response rates would have probably increased the savings associated with the efavirenz-based regimen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adkins JC, Noble S. Efavirenz. Drugs 1998 Dec; 56: 1055–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moyle GJ. Efavirenz: shifting the HAART paradigm in adult HIV-1 infection. Expert Opin Invest Drug 1999 Apr; 8: 473–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gazzard BG. Efavirenz in the management of HIV infection. Int J Clin Pract 1999 Jan-Feb; 53: 60–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fauci AS. The AIDS epidemic: considerations for the 21st century. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1046–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic - June 2000 [online]. Available from: URL: http://www.unaids.org/epidemicupdate/report/gloestim.pdf [Accessed 2000 Dec 14]

  6. Bartlett JG, Moore R. A comprehensive plan for managed care of patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29: 50–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Holtgrave DR, Pinkerton SD. Updates of cost of illness and quality of life estimates for use in economic evaluations of HIV prevention programs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndrom Hum Retrovirol 1997 Sep 1; 16: 54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore RD. Understanding the clinical and economic outcomes of HIV therapy: the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Practice Cohort. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndrom Hum Retrovirol 1998; 17 Suppl. 1: S38–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Petrou S, Dooley M, Whitaker L, et al. The economic costs of caring for people with HIV infection and AIDS in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 1996 Apr; 9: 332–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhattacharyya SK, Langley PC, Draugalis JR, et al. Lifetime costs of treating-HIV infected patients using a protease inhibitor [abstract]. J Manage Care Pharm 1999 Sep-Oct; 5: 398

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gill MJ, Webek M, Davidson WE. Comparative health care costs in a regional HIV/AIDS population [abstract]. 12th World AIDS Conference; 1998 Jun 28-Jul 3; Geneva: 466

  12. Gebo KA, Chaisson RE, Folkemer JG, et al. Costs of HIV medical care in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 1999 May 28; 13: 963–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lapins D, Barrett J, Hamel EC, et al. Trends in costs of care for patients with HIV [abstract no. O-21]. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1998 Sep 24–27; San Diego: 613

  14. Pinkerton SD, Holtgrave DR. Economic impact of delaying or preventing AIDS in persons with HIV. Am J Manage Care 1999 Mar; 5: 289–98

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Carpenter CCJ, Cooper DA, Fischl MA, et al. Antiretroviral therapy in adults: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society - USA panel. JAMA 2000 Jan 19; 283: 381–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. BHIVA Writing Committee, on behalf of the BHIVA Executive Committee. British HIV Association (BHIVA) guidelines for the treatment of HIV-infected adults with antiretroviral therapy [online].Available from: URL: http://www.aidsmap.com/bhiva/bhivagd1299.htm [Accessed 2000 Oct 31]

  17. SUSTIVA (efavirenz capsules) Rx only. Product monograph. DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company; Feb 2000; Wilmington (DE): 1–21

  18. Staszewski S, Morales-Ramirez J, Tashima KT, et al. Efavirenz plus zidovudine and lamivudine, efavirenz plus indinavir, and indinavir plus zidovudine and lamivudine in the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults. N Engl J Med 1999 Dec 16; 341: 1865–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gallant J, Seekins D, Hicks C, et al. A phase II, double-blind, placebo-control, dose-ranging study to assess the antiretroviral activity & safety of efavirenz (EFV, SUSTIVA, DMP266) in combination with open-label zidovudine (ZDV) w/ lamivudine (3TC) at >48 weeks. [DMP266–005] [abstract no. I-245]. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1998 Sep 24–27; San Diego, 441

  20. De TP, Force G, Chemlal K, et al. La Francilienne, a pilot open-label study to evaluate safety and efficacy of a potent combination therapy without protease inhibitor (3TC+ZDV+ abacavir+ efavirenz) in antiretroviral therapy naive adults: preliminary results [abstract]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection; 1999 Oct 23–27; Lisbon, 18–19

  21. Cohen C, Lang J, Luskin-Hawk R, et al. Efavirenz (EFV) in combination with stavudine (D4T) and didanosine (DDI) or lamivudine (3TC) is well tolerated and efficacious in the majority of patients treated [abstract]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection; 1999 Oct 23–27; Lisbon, 15

  22. Jaeger H, Gersbacher E, Wolf E, et al. Efavirenz versus nevirapine: efficacy and effects on blood lipids in PI-sparing regimens [abstract]. 13th International AIDS Conference; 2000 Jul 9; 2: 75

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kagan S, Jemsek J, Martin DG, et al. Initial effectiveness and tolerability of nelfinavir (NFV) in combination with efavirenz (EFV, SUSTIVA, DMP 266) in antiretroviral therapy naive or nucleoside analogue experienced HIV-1 infected patients: characterization in a phase II, open-label, multi-center study at greater than 36 weeks (Study DMP 266–024) [abstract]. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1998 Sep 24: San Diego, 394

  24. Molina JM, Ferchal F, Rancinan C, et al. A pilot study of FTC + ddI + efavirenz in treatment-naive HIV-infected adult: a potent and convenient once-a-day HAART (ANRS 091 Trial). 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections [abstract; online]. Available from: URL: http://www.retroconference.org/2000/abstracts/518.htm [Accessed 2000 Jun 7]

  25. Knechten H, Welter U, Holmgren HC, et al. Switch from protease inhibitor containing regimens with stavudin (D4T) and lamivudin(3TC) to D4T, 3TC and efavirenz (EFV) in patients with sustained viral suppression [abstract]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection; 1999 Oct 23–27: Lisbon, 91

  26. Haas DW, Fessel WJ, Delapenha RA, et al. A phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of the combination of efavirenz (EFV, SUSTIVA TM, DMP 266) and indinavir (IDV) versus IDV in HIV-1-infected patients receiving nucleoside analogue therapy (NRTI) at 24 weeks (study DMP 266–020) [abstract]. Clin Microbiol Infect 1999 Mar; 5 Suppl. 3: 54–5

    Google Scholar 

  27. Haas DW, Fessel WJ, Delapenha RA, et al. A phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center study to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of the combination of efavirenz (EFV, SUSTIVA, DMP 266) and indinavir (IDV) versus IDV in HIV-1 infected patients receiving nucleoside analogue (NRTI) therapy at >36 weeks. [Study DMP 266–020]. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1998 Sep 24–27; San Diego, 441

  28. Albrecht M, Katzenstein D, Bosch RJ, et al. ACTG 364: virologic efficacy of nelfinavir (NFV) and/or efavirenz (EFV) in combination with new nucleoside analogs in nucleoside experienced subjects [abstract]. 12th World AIDS Conference; 1998 Jun 28 – Jul 3; Geneva, 52

  29. Albrecht M, Katzenstein D, Bosch R, et al. ACTC 364- nelfinavir (NFV) and/or efavirenz (EFV) in combination with new NRTIs in nucleoside experienced subjects (Subj): week-48 ultrasensitive (US) HIV RNA results. 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections [abstract; online]. Available from: URL: http://www.retroconference.org/2000/abstracts/531.htm [Accessed 2000 Jun 7]

  30. Starr SE, Fletcher CV, Spector SA, et al. Combination therapy with efavirenz, nelfinavir, and nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors in children infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med 1999 Dec 16; 341: 1874–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Staszewski S, Tashima K, Stryker R, et al. A phase III, multicenter, randomized, open label study to compare the antiretroviral activity and tolerability of efavirenz (EFV) + indinavir (IDV), versus EFV + zidovudine (ZDV) + lamivudine (3TC), versus IDV + ZDV + 3TC at 48 weeks (Study DMP 266006) macrolide subinhibitory concentrations [abstract]. Clin Microbiol Infect 1999 Mar; 5 Suppl. 3: 229

    Google Scholar 

  32. Staszewski S, Morales-Ramirez JO, Godofsky EW, et al. Longer time-to-treatment failure and durability of response with efavirenz + ZDV + 3TC: first analysis of full 1266 patient cohort from study 006 [abstract]. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1999 Sep 26–29: San Francisco, 473

  33. Staszewski S, Nelson M, Barros Aguado C, et al. Efavirenz (EFV) + zidovudine (ZDV) + lamivudine (3TC) provides superior long-term antiretroviral activity and tolerability versus IDV + ZDV + 3TC at 72 weeks: results from a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study in 450 patients (Study DPC266–006 initial cohort) [abstract]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection; 1999 Oct 23–27: Lisbon, 16

    Google Scholar 

  34. Levy R, Labriola D, Ruiz N. Low two year risk of virologic failure with first regimen HAART [abstract]. 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2001 Feb 4–8: Chicago. In press

    Google Scholar 

  35. Riddler S, Kahn J, Martin G, et al. Durable HIV suppression and tolerability with efavirenz (EFV) + indinavir (IDV): results at 132 weeks (Study 003-Cohort IV). 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections [online] [abstract]. Available from: URL: http://www.retroconference.org/2000/abstracts/513.htm [Accessed 2000 Jun 7]

  36. Ruiz N, Manion D, Riddler S, et al. Durable clinical anti-HIV-1 activity at 84 weeks and tolerability for efavirenz (EFZ) in combination with indinavir (IDV) [study DMP 266–003, cohort IV] [abstract no. P75]. AIDS 1998 Nov; 12 Suppl. 4: S36

    Google Scholar 

  37. Römer K, Fatkenheuer G, Bethe U, et al. Salvage therapy with efavirenz [abstract]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection; 1999 Oct 23–27: Lisbon, 112

  38. Masur H, Falloon J, Thomas D, et al. Durability of abacavir/amprenavir/efavirenz combination salvage therapy - preliminary 48-week response (CNA2007) [abstract]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection; 1999 Oct 23–27: Lisbon, 281

  39. Testa L, Suter F, Maggiolo F, et al. Salvage therapy with non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) in patients failing protease inhibitors containing regimens [abstract]. AIDS 1998 Nov; 12 Suppl. 4: S49

    Google Scholar 

  40. Farthing C, Sampson M, Somero M, et al. Effectiveness of adefovir+abacavir+efavirenz as salvage therapy for patients with documented virologic failure to other combination antiretroviral drug regimens [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1998 Oct; 27: 1004

    Google Scholar 

  41. Falloon J, Masur H, Brosgart C, et al. Salvage therapy with abacavir, amprenavir, and efavirenz in subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA > 500 copies /mL despite protease inhibitor (PI) therapy [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1998 Oct; 27: 1004

    Google Scholar 

  42. Shulman N, Zolopa A, Passaro DJ, et al. Efavirenz and adefovir dipivoxil-based salvage in highly treatment-experienced patients: clinical and genotypic predictors of virologic response. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2000; 23: 221–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Wasmuth J-C, Römer K, Salzberger B, et al. Efficacy and safety of abacavir+efavirenz plus background combination therapy as a salvage regimen in HIV-infected individuals [abstract]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection; 1999 Oct 23–27: Lisbon, 15

  44. Seminari E, Maggiolo F, Villani P, et al. Efavirenz, nelfinavir, and stavudine rescue combination therapy in HIV-1-positive patients heavily pretreated with nucleoside analogues and protease inhibitors. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999 Dec 15; 22: 453–60

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gilson I, Busalacchi M. Abacavir/efavirenz/adefovir salvage regimen for refractory HIV disease [abstract]. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1998 Sep 24; San Diego, 428

  46. Antela A, Moreno A, Hertogs K, et al. Different efficacy of efavirenz-containing rescue regimens for patients failing protease inhibitors depending on previous nevirapine experience [abstract no. 514]. Seventh European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection; 1999 Oct 23–27; Lisbon, 106–7

  47. Hammer S, Mellors J, Vaida F, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of saquinavir (SQV)sgc, indinavir (IDV) or nelfinavir (NFV) in combination with amprenavir (APV), abacavir (ABC), efavirenz (EFZ) and adefovir (ADV) in patients (Pts) with protease inhibitor (PI) failure. 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2000 Jan 30 – Feb 2; San Francisco

  48. Ruiz NM, Manion DJ, Cain VA, et al. Potential adverse experiences associated with efavirenz [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1998 Oct; 27: 1013

    Google Scholar 

  49. Temesgen Z, Wright AJ. Antiretrovirals. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 1284–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Caro JJ, O’Brien JA, Migliaccio-Walle K, et al. Economic analysis of initial HIV treatment: efavirenz- versus indinavir-containing triple therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (1): 95–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Williams G, Palmer R, McMurchy D, et al. Cost comparison of efavirenz (EFV) and indinavir (IDV) combination therapies for HIV infection [abstract]. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1999 Sep 26–29: San Francisco, 736

  52. Hammer SM, Squires KE, Hughes MD, et al. A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 725–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Gazzard B, AVANTI 2. A randomised double blind, comparative trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerance of AZT/3TC vs. AZT/3TC/indinavir in anti-retroviral naive patients: 100 week data. AIDS 1998; 12 Suppl. 4: S35

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mellors JW, Muñoz A, Giorgi JV, et al. Plasma viral load and CD4+ lymphocytes as prognostic markers forHIV-1 infection. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 946–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Yerly S, Perneger TV, Hirschel B, et al. A critical assessment of the prognostic value of HIV-1 RNA levels and CD4+ cell counts in HIV-infected patients. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 247–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Katzenstein DA, Hammer SM, Hughes MD, et al. The relation of virologic and immunologic markers to clinical outcomes after nucleoside therapy in HIV-infected adults with 200 to 500 CD4 cells per cubic millimeter. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1091–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Plosker GL, Noble S. Indinavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV infection. Drugs 1999 Dec; 58 (6): 1165–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Clumeck N. Choosing the best initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 1999 Dec 16; 341 (25): 1925–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Rogers PA, Gore SM, Whitmore-Overton SE, et al. United Kingdom AIDS survival in adults. AIDS 1996; 10: 1571–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Palella Jr FJ, Delaney KM, Moorman AC, et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 853–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Egger M, Hirschel B, Francioli P, et al. Impact of new antiretroviral combination therapies in HIV infected patients in Switzerland: prospective multicentre study. Swiss HIV Corhort Study. BMJ 1997; 315: 1194–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Mocroft A, Vella S, Benfield TL, et al. Changing patterns of mortality across Europe in patients infected with HIV-1. Lancet 1998; 352: 1725–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Elliott EB. Hope for HIV patients: news from the 12th International Conference on HIV and AIDS [news]. Can Fam Physician 1999 Mar; 45: 829–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Hogg RS, Yip B, Kully C, et al. Improved survival among HIV infected patients after initiation of triple-drug antiretroviral regimens. Can Med Assoc J 1999; 160 (5): 659–65

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Mole L, Ockrim K, Holodniy M. Decreased medical expenditures for care of HIV-seropositive patients: the impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy at a US Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 Sep; 16: 307–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Vittinghoff E, Scheer S, O’Malley P, et al. Combination antiretroviral therapy and recent declines in AIDS incidence and mortality. J Infect Dis 1999; 179: 717–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Rachlis AR, Palmer RWH, Doswell M. Improved survival time and CD4 slope associated with recent advances in HIV antiretroviral therapy [abstract no. 194]. 5th Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections; 1998 Feb 1–5; Chicago

  68. Anis AH, Hogg RS, Wang X-h, et al. Modelling the potential economic impact of viral load-driven triple drug combination antiretroviral therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 Jun; 13: 697–705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. McCollum M, Klaus B, La Rue R, et al. HAART reduced overall costs of HIV care at DVAMC-Denver [abstract no. 200/ Session 28]. 5th Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections; 1998 Feb 1–5; Chicago

  70. Melnick D, Greiner D, Little P, et al. Impact of aggressive management of HIV infection on clinical outcome and cost of care within a health maintenance organization [abstract no. 201/ Session 28]. 5th Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections; 1998 Feb 1–5; Chicago

  71. Domingo P, Guardiola JM, Ris J, et al. The impact of new antiretroviral regimes on HIV-associated hospital admissions and deaths. AIDS 1998; 12: 529–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Mouton Y, Alfandari S, Valette M, et al. Impact of protease inhibitors on AIDS-defining events and hospitalizations in 10 French AIDS reference centres. AIDS 1997 Oct; 11: F101–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Pehrson P, Hejdeman B, Lidman K. New principals for treatment — how does it affect the costs for HIV care? [abstract no. 60546]. 12th World AIDS Conference; 1998 Jul; Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ruane PJ, Tam JT, Zakowski PC, et al. Recent advances in antiviral therapy (ARV) for HIVcan result in lower total costs - 3 year analysis [abstract no. 24136]. 12th World AIDS Conference; 1998 Jul; Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  75. Stansell JD, Daly D, Hamel E, et al. Economic impact of protease inhibitors on HIV treatment [abstract]. J Manage Care Pharm 1999 Sep-Oct; 5: 406

    Google Scholar 

  76. Shinohara YT, Wallace MR, Tasker SA, et al. The changing economics of HIV care [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1998 Oct; 27: 1046

    Google Scholar 

  77. Urdaneta ME, Markson LE, Barrett J, et al. Economic impact of HIV care in a managed care environment [abstract]. J Manage Care Pharm 1999; 5 (3): 202

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sendi PP, Bucher HC, Harr T, et al. Cost effectiveness of highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients. AIDS 1999 Jun 18; 13: 1115–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Gazzard B, Moyle G, on behalf of the BHIVA Guidelines Writing Committee. 1998 revision to the British HIV Association guidelines for antiretroviral treatment of HIV seropositive individuals. Lancet 1998; 352: 314–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Youle M, Trueman P, Simpson K. Health economics in HIV disease: a review of the European literature. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15 Suppl. 1: 1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Kjekshus J, et al. Cost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 332–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Schulman KA, Lynn LA, Glick HA, et al. Cost effectiveness of low-dose zidovudine therapy for asymptomatic patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 798–802

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Fumaz CR, Tuldrà A, Ferrer MJ, et al. Assessment of quality of life, adherence and emotional status in patients treated with efavirenz [abstract]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection (Late Breakers); 1999 Oct 23–27; Lisbon, 4

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adis International Limited, 41 Centorian Drive, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 10, New Zealand

    Greg L. Plosker, Caroline M. Perry & Karen L. Goa

Authors
  1. Greg L. Plosker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline M. Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen L. Goa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg L. Plosker.

Additional information

Various sections of the manuscript reviewed by: J.J. Caro, Caro Research, Concord, Massachusetts, USA; A. Messori, Drug Information Centre, Pharmacoeconomics, Azienda Ospedale Careggi, Florence, Italy; L. Mole, Center for Quality Management in HIV Care, Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto, California, USA; S.D. Pinkerton, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Medicine, Center for AIDS Intervention Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA; P.P. Sendi, Internal Medicine Outpatient Department, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; A. Trippoli, Drug Information Centre, Pharmacoeconomics, Azienda Ospedale Careggi, Florence, Italy.

Data Selection

Sources: Medical literature published in any language since 1966 on Efavirenz, identified using Medline, supplemented by AdisBase (a proprietary database of Adis International, Auckland, New Zealand). Additional references were identified from the reference lists of published articles. Bibliographical information, including contributory unpublished data, was also requested from the company developing the drug.

Search strategy: AdisBase search terms were ‘Efavirenz’ or ‘DMP266’ or ‘HIV-infections’ and (‘health-economics’ or ‘pharmacoepidemiology’ or ‘prescribing’ or ‘hospitalisation’ or ‘formularies’ or ‘drug-utilisation’ or ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘therapeutic-substitution’ or ‘epidemiology’), or ‘Efavirenz’ or ‘DMP 266’ and ‘HIV-infections’. Medline search terms were ‘Efavirenz’ or ‘DMP 266’ or ‘HIV-infections’ and (‘economics’ or ‘health-policy’ or ‘quality-of-life’ or ‘models-statistical’ or ‘health-planning’ or ‘epidemiology’ or ‘guideline in pt’ or ‘practice-guidelines in pt’. Searches were last updated 5 March 2001.

Selection: Economic analyses in patients with HIV infection who received efavirenz. Inclusion of studies was based mainly on the methods section of the trials. Relevant background data on epidemiology and cost of illness are also included.

Index terms: HIV infection, AIDS, pharmacoeconomics, cost effectiveness, therapeutic use, tolerability, quality of life.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plosker, G.L., Perry, C.M. & Goa, K.L. Efavirenz. Pharmacoeconomics 19, 421–436 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119040-00009

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119040-00009

Keywords

Search

Navigation