The impact of zidovudine compared with didanosine on health status and functioning in persons with advanced HIV infection and a varying duration of prior zidovudine therapy

by Samuel A. Bozzette, David E. Kanouse, Naihua Duan, Sandra H. Berry, Douglas Richman

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback12 pages Free

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of zidovudine and didanosine on health-related quality of life in persons with advanced HIV infection and varying duration of prior zidovudine exposure. It was designed as a substudy nested in two similar placebo-controlled active-control-arm randomized trials, using sites of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group participating in the randomized trials of zidovudine versus didanosine (ACTG 116 and 117). The results showed no differences in reported symptom impact or healthcare utilization, and most measures of disability were similar. In the group with more than 8 weeks of prior zidovudine therapy, several of the health status scale scores for ongoing participants were significantly better for didanosine recipients, but average differences were small. Use of several different approaches to combining health status and survival showed no differences in the overall quality-time experiences between the treatment groups. Individuals taking zidovudine low-dose didanosine and high-dose didanosine experienced 33, 34 and 35 weeks, respectively, in at least the typical health state if they had fewer than 8 weeks of previous zidovudine therapy, and had 23, 23 and 26 weeks, respectively, if they had more than 8 weeks previous use of zidovudine. Results did not differ when data were analysed within strata of patients who had any versus no prior exposure to zidovudine, or AIDS versus non-AIDS status. In conclusion, functional status and health-related quality of life were substantially similar among persons receiving either zidovudine or didanosine, regardless of the duration of prior zidovudine treatment.

Originally published in: Antiviral Therapy, January 1996, pp. 21-32.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.