Cost-effectiveness analysis of using antiretroviral drug resistance testing

Francesco Nicola Lauria, Claudio Angeletti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients failing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have a substantially lower chance of clinical success than naive patients given their first antiretroviral therapy. This suggests that HAART failure is a determinant for an increase in the cost of treatment. A review of the literature regarding cost and impact of antiretroviral drug-resistance testing was performed. Examination of existing methods to execute a cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of these tests in clinical practice was also undertaken. The cost of treatment failure in HIV-infected patients has been quantified in several retrospective studies. The cost of care for patients with virological suppression was significantly lower than those with a single virological failure. Moreover, the latter group had lower costs than patients with multiple failures. The result of the cost-effective analysis based on a specific model application using genotypic resistance assays to guide the choice of a subsequent therapy in HIV disease, is cost-effective under a wide range of assumptions regarding effectiveness and costs. The available studies on the cost-effective evaluation of genotypic tests are limited, and the respective studies supply important indications on cost-effective evaluations. Despite its demonstrated benefits, antiretroviral drug resistance testing presents features and limitations that also restrict the cost-effectiveness analysis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)54-57
Number of pages4
JournalScandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, Supplement
Issue number106
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2003

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Immunology


Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness analysis of using antiretroviral drug resistance testing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this