Abstract
Objectives: Evidence comparing the economic and patient values of the World Health Organization's preferred (dolutegravir 50 mg [DTG]-based) and alternative (low-dose [400 mg] efavirenz [EFV400]-based) first-line antiretroviral regimens is limited. We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs), costs, and the cost-utility of DTG- versus EFV400-based regimens in treatment-naive HIV-1 adults in the randomised NAMSAL ANRS 12313 trial in Yaoundé, Cameroon.Methods:We used clinical data, PROs, and health resource use data collected in the trial’s first 96 weeks (2016–2019). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed using utility scores obtained from the 12-item Short Form (SF-12) generic health scale. Other PROs included perceived symptoms, depression, anxiety, and stress. In the 96-week base-case analysis, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted (1) mean costs (in US$, 2016 values) and QALYs/patient, (2) incremental costs and QALYs/patient, and (3) net health benefit (NHB). Outcomes were extrapolated over 5 and 10 years. Uncertainty was assessed using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve and scenario and cost-effective price threshold analyses.