A Utility Assessment of Oral and Intravenous Ganciclovir for the Maintenance Treatment of AIDS-Related Cytomegalovirus Retinitis
- 16 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to determine the magnitude of the difference in patient preferences/utility for intravenous (IV) ganciclovir compared with oral ganciclovir for maintenance treatment of cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis.
We used a cross-sectional, interviewer-administered time trade-off (TTO) exercise with hypothetical health state descriptions, based upon data from clinical trials and the published literature. The study was conducted in a private clinic in Sydney, Australia, specialising in the care of people with HIV. A total of 80 individuals with HIV infection who had not developed AIDS were administered the TIO instrument. The main outcome measure was the difference between each respondent’s utility score for oral and IV ganciclovir maintenance therapy.
When the 80 HIV-positive patients were presented with information on drug efficacy, adverse effects and mode of administration, 60 (75%) preferred oral ganciclovir, 4 patients preferred IV ganciclovir, and 16 were indifferent, The median utilities were 0.837 (oral ganciclovir) and 0.475 (IV ganciclovir). The difference in rankings was statistically significant by Wilcoxon’s signed-ranks test (Z = -6.69, P < 0,00005)
The median utility scores suggest that, all other things being equal, individuals with HIV infection would prefer an oral formulation of ganciclovir to IV administration in the event of CMV retinitis infection.
KeywordsZidovudine Ganciclovir Retinitis Utility Score Perfect Health
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Gelher RD. Lenderking WR. COllon DJ. et al. Quality-of-Iife evaluation in a clinical trial of zidovudine therapy in patientswith mildly symptomati. HIV infection. Ann Intern Med1992: 116: 961–6Google Scholar
- 5.Wu AW. Mathews WE. Brysk LT. et al. Quality of life in a placebo-controlled trial of zidovudine in patients with AIDSand AIDS-related complex. J Acquir Immune Delic Syndr1990: 3: 683–90Google Scholar
- 10.Drummond MF. Stoddart GL. Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford Medical Publications. 1987Google Scholar
- 14.Patrik DL. Erickson P. Health status and health policy. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993: 164–80Google Scholar
- 16.Furlong W. Feny D. Torrance GW. et al. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. Hamilton(0nt: McMaster University). 1990: 90–9 (CHEPA workingpaper series)Google Scholar
- 18.Fisher LD. van Belle G. Biostatistics: a methodology for the health sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc 1993:159:310Google Scholar