Table 4

 Sensitivity analyses for key inputs and modelling assumptions for cost effectiveness analysis, antiretroviral monitoring study, Tororo and Busia Districts, Uganda, 2003-7

Input or assumptionValues/methods usedMost/least favourable ICER ($/DALY averted)
Base caseMost/least favourable*Clinical/CD4 (v clinical) Clinical/CD4/viral load (v clinical/CD4)
Deaths per 100 person years (intention to treat):
 Clinical/CD4/viral load, 95% CI†, other arms kept at base case3.72.22/6.11174/1741550/dominated‡
 Clinical/CD4, 95% CI†, other arms kept at base case4.12.55/6.48368/1792§Dominated‡/1263
 Clinical, 95% CI†, other arms kept at base case5.89.10/3.70454/2832§5181/5181
Deaths per 100 person years (per protocol):
 Viral load arm, CD4 arm, clinical armIntention to treat (above)NA/2.2, 2.0, 3.5NA/88NA/dominated‡
Annual rate of regimen change:
 Viral load arm, CD4 arm, clinical arm0.7%, 0.4%, 1.8%50-150% of base case values401/dominant‡4882/5466
Future DALYs averted and costs added per death:
 Inclusion or exclusion of projections beyond trialIncludedNA/excludedNA/307NA/10 257
Unit costs of monitoring test kits:
 Viral load27.2013.60/54.40176/1733322/7040
Costs of antiretroviral drugs (annual; per person):
 First line regimen12563/18873/2755169/5193
 Second line regimen1119557/1679451/dominant‡4825/5538
Costs of opportunistic infection treatment:
 Observed (base case) v imputed from rates of opportunistic infection122, 123, 12797, 123, 194/NA1.06/NA4906/NA

NA=not applicable.

*For cost effectiveness of laboratory testing.

†95% CI from clinical trial.11

‡Dominated=higher cost and fewer DALYs than comparator; dominant=cheaper and better.

§ICER for high end of mortality range represents reverse comparison among arms.