Economic Models of Antiretroviral Therapy
- 33 Downloads
The diffusion of protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in the US in 1996 and 1997 reduced the number of deaths attributable to HIV disease and changed the way we think about the illness. Today, HIV disease may be deemed a fairly expensive chronic condition rather than an intolerably expensive fatal illness.
Although most studies have found that patients receiving new drug therapies are hospitalised less frequently than patients who received early drug therapies, it is unclear whether the diffusion of new drug therapies has increased or decreased the annual cost of care. However, it is evident that the diffusion of new drug therapies has increased the lifetime cost of care.
Analysts rely on models to simulate the course and cost of HIV disease. This study reviews the evolution of these models, paying particular attention to how these models estimate the cost of care. The primary findings of this review are that the economic data used in these models are often too imprecise to accurately identify the cost of each disease stage and are almost always outdated. Moreover, it was found that estimates of drug costs in these models may not accurately reflect actual expenditures.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of AHRQ. The author has no conflicts of interest to report and received no funding for the preparation of this article.
- 22.US Food and Drug Administration, USDHHHS. Drugs used in the treatment of HIV infection [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/virals.html [Accessed 2006 Jun 14]Google Scholar
- 29.Tapper ML, Aexner C, Fron JJ, et al. Simplifying antiretroviral therapy. AIDS Read 2004; 14: 367–371Google Scholar
- 31.Kates J, Penner M, Cruttsinger-Perry B, et al. National ADAP Monitoring Project Report, Kaiser Family Foundation and the National Association of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. Washingon, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kff.org/hivaids/hiv033006pkg.cfm [Accessed 2006 Jun 14]Google Scholar
- 33.Aldridge C, Davis D, Doyle A. National ADAP monitoring project: interim technical report. Menlo Park (CA): The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002Google Scholar
- 35.Duggans MG, Evans WN. Estimating the impact of medical innovation: the case of HIV antiretroviral treatments. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 1109. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005Google Scholar
- 37.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS surveillance report: US HIV and AIDS cases reported through June 2001, vol. 13 no. 1, 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/past.htm#supplemental [Accessed 2006 Jun 14]Google Scholar
- 38.Risebrough N, Oh P, Rachlis A, et al. Economic evaluation of triple ART with indinavir or abacavir and ZDV+3TC compared to dual therapy ZDV+3TC [abstract no. 103]. 6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infection; 1999 Jan 31–Feb 4; Chicago (IL)Google Scholar
- 45.Drug topics red book. Montvale (NJ): Medical Economics, 2001Google Scholar
- 46.US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. Cost containment of Medicaid HIV/AIDS drug expenditures. Report No. OEI-05-99-0611. Washington, DC: 2001 JulGoogle Scholar
- 52.Roberts RR, Rydman RJ, Gorosh K, et al. Actual costs of HIV/AIDS care. 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2001 Feb 4–8; Chicago (IL)Google Scholar
- 55.Bonjoch A, Paredes R, Galvez J, et al. Antiretroviral treatment simplification with 3 NRTIs or 2 NRTIs plus nevirapine in HIV-1 infected patients treated with successful first-line HAART. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005; 339: 1897–1904Google Scholar
- 69.Cook AE. Strategies for containing drug costs: implications for a medicare benefit. Health Care Finane Rev 1999; 20: 29–37Google Scholar
- 72.Fleishman JA, Gebo KA, Reilly ED, et al. Hospital and outpatient health services utilization among HIV-infected adults in care 2000–2002. Med Care 2005 Sep; 43 (9 Suppl.): III-40–III-52Google Scholar