Economic evaluation of initial antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected patients: an update of Italian guidelines

Economic evaluation studies in the field of HIV/AIDS: bibliometric analysis on research development and scopes (GAPRESEARCH)

Background

The rapid decrease in international funding for HIV/AIDS has been challenging for many nations to effectively mobilize and allocate their limited resources for HIV/AIDS programs. Economic evaluations can help inform decisions and strategic planning. This study aims to examine the trends and patterns in economic evaluation studies in the field of HIV/AIDS and determine their research landscapes.

Methods

Using the Web of Science databases, we synthesized the number of papers and citations on HIV/AIDS and economic evaluation from 1990 to 2017. Collaborations between authors and countries, networks of keywords and research topics were visualized using frequency of co-occurrence and Jaccards’ similarity index. A Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) analysis to categorize papers into different topics/themes.

Results

A total of 372 economic evaluation papers were selected, including 351 cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), 11 cost-utility analyses (CUA), 12 cost-benefit analyses (CBA). The growth of publications, their citations and usages have increased remarkably over the years. Major research topics in economic evaluation studies consisted of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and treatment; drug use prevention interventions and prevention of mother-to-child transmission interventions. Moreover, lack of contextualized evidence was found in specific settings with high burden HIV epidemics, as well as emerging most-at-risk populations such as trans-genders or migrants.

Conclusion

This study highlights the knowledge and geographical discrepancies in HIV/AIDS economic evaluation literature. Future research directions are also informed for advancing economic evaluation in HIV/AIDS research.

A meta-analysis comparing 48-week treatment outcomes of single and multi-tablet antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of people living with HIV

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes with single tablet regimens (STR) versus multi-tablet regimens (MTR) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment using published data.

DESIGN

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of literature on approved and investigational HIV regimens.

METHODS

The research followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Single or un-blinded studies reporting a direct comparison between STR and MTR were eligible for the meta-analysis. Double-blinded studies were excluded due to lack of difference in pill burden between cohorts. The key outcomes of interest included: adherence rates/proportion meeting target, efficacy, safety/tolerability, non-clinical and economic outcomes.

RESULTS

After screening 63 full-text articles and posters, 14 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The analysis showed that patients taking STR had improved outcomes over those taking MTR. Patients were significantly more adherent regardless of daily dosing frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 1.96, p < 0.001) and were more likely to achieve virological suppression (relative risk [RR]: 1.05, p = 0.002). There was a trend toward a lower discontinuation risk in the STR cohort, together with reported higher therapy satisfaction, better symptom control, improved health status, reduced healthcare resource utilization and demonstrated cost-effectiveness compared to MTR. There were no differences in CD4 cell count increase (at 48 weeks) or safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study confirm previously reported preliminary findings of the advantages of STR over MTR for HIV treatment in adherence, therapy continuation, viral suppression, tolerability, quality of life improvement, cost-effectiveness and healthcare resource utilization.

How has the cost of antiretroviral therapy changed over the years? A database analysis in Italy

Background

The number of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related hospitalizations has decreased worldwide in recent years, due to the availability of combined antiretroviral therapies (cART). The present analysis aimed to analyse the economic, and clinical burden of HIV management, after the introduction of systematic use of cART.

Methods

Data from HIV-infected patients, treated at Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genova (Italy) were retrospectively collected. A comparison between years 2009 and 2015 was performed. HIV-related admissions were identified by using the Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) codes. The resource consumption of outpatient services was derived by using a modelling approach. Expenditure for drugs was also analysed, as aggregate data.

Results

The number of HIV-infected patients was 898 in 2009 and 1006 in 2015. Overall, the virological success rate improved from 2009 to 2015, as the percentage of patients with HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL increased from 79 to 89% (P < 0.05). The average incidence of hospitalizations per-patient decreased from 0.30 in 2009, to 0.13 in 2015. Average expenditure per-patient decreased from €10,107 in 2009 to €9063 in 2015.

Conclusions

The present analysis confirmed the role of cART in controlling HIV viral load and, consequently, in reducing hospitalizations, admissions to day-hospital and the use of outpatient services.

Clinical improvements and economic savings more than compensated the investments required to treat HIV-infected patients with cART. Health Authorities should invest in modern cART supply and universal treatment, to use at best the available resources and obtain a cost-effective improvement of health in people living with HIV. Additional research, with the involvement of different centers and the use of patient-specific data, are recommended to consolidate the findings of this analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3507-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Early Treatment in HIV Patients: A Cost-Utility Analysis from the Italian Perspective

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has modified the clinical course of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, reducing the rate of disease progression, the incidence of opportunistic infections and mortality. Several recent studies show early antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of AIDS and HIV-related disease. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis to estimate the cost-utility of early antiretroviral therapy in Italy for managing HIV-infected patients.

METHODS

The incremental cost-utility analysis was carried out to quantify the benefits of the early-treatment approach in HIV subjects. A Markov simulation model including direct costs and health outcomes was developed from a third-party (Italian National Healthcare Service) payer's perspective for four CD4 strata. 5000 Monte Carlo simulations were performed on two distinct scenarios: Standard of care (SoC) in which 30% of patients started HAART with a CD4 count ≥500 cells/mm(3) versus the early-treatment scenario (ETS), where the number of patients starting HAART with a CD4 count ≥500 cells/mm(3) increased to 70%. A systematic literature review was carried out to identify epidemiological and economic data, which were subsequently used to inform the model. In addition, a one-way probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed in order to measure the relationship between the effectiveness of the treatments and the number of patients to undergo early treatment.

RESULTS

The model shows, in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, that early treatment appeared to be the most cost-effective option compared to SoC (ICER = €13,625) over a time horizon of 10 years. The cost effectiveness of ETS is more sustainable as it extends the time horizon analysis (ICER = €7526 per QALY to 20 years and €8382 per QALY to 30 years). The one-way sensitivity analysis on the main variables confirmed the robustness of the model for the early-treatment approach.

CONCLUSION

Our model represents a tool for policy makers and health-care professionals to provide information on the cost effectiveness of the early-treatment approach in HIV-infected patients in Italy. Starting HAART earlier keeps HIV-infected patients in better health and reduces the incidence of AIDS- and non-AIDS-related events, generating a gain in terms of both patients' health and correct resource allocation.

Cost considerations in the current antiretroviral era

BACKGROUND

US national guidelines call for cost-conscious practices including the selection of antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to analyze the relative cost-effectiveness of contemporary antiretroviral therapy in real-world clinical settings.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

METHODS

Retrospective follow-up study of treatment-naïve persons living with HIV initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) between January 2007 and December 2012 at an academically affiliated HIV clinic was conducted. Analysis was restricted to patients with the five most commonly prescribed regimens (N = 491). Patients were followed until December 14 to determine the durability of the initial regimen prescribed; median durations were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. The average 340b price of the ART regimen 30-day supply was used for cost. Sensitivity analyses were performed adjusting for missing data and pricing indices and using mean durability (±1 SD).

RESULTS

Initial regimens contained emtricitabine and tenofovir, along with a third drug. Median durability was shortest for ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (31.9 months) and longest for ritonavir-boosted darunavir and raltegravir (both 47.8 months). All regimens were dominated, meaning less durable and more costly, relative to efavirenz ($710.64/month) and raltegravir-based regimens ($1075.03/month). These findings were reproduced in sensitivity analysis, although rilpivirine became a valuable option in some scenarios. Relative to the efavirenz-based regimen, raltegravir had an incremental cost of $47/month of additional therapy.

CONCLUSION

In this sample, raltegravir and efavirenz-based regimens are the most cost-effective options for treatment-naive patients. Sensitivity analyses suggest rilpivirine is a reasonable choice in limited scenarios. These findings are relevant given changes in recommended regimens for treatment-naive persons, which include raltegravir and darunavir but exclude efavirenz and rilpivirine-based regimens.

SUMMARY

Of five commonly prescribed regimens for treatment-naïve HIV patients in one clinic (2007-2012), emtricitabine and tenofovir with efavirenz and raltegravir were the only consistently cost-effective options; the rilpivirine-based regimen was valuable in limited scenarios. Further data on the comparative effectiveness of efavirenz and rilpivirine are needed before they are abandoned.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tenofovir/emtricitabine and abacavir/lamivudine in combination with efavirenz or atazanavir/ritonavir for treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the UK, based on the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5202 clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the four regimens studied in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) 5202 clinical trial, tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) in combination with efavirenz (EFV) or atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r), for treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model with six health states based on CD4 cell count ranges was developed to predict long-term costs and health outcomes for individuals on first-line therapy. Head-to-head efficacy data comparing TDF/FTC + EFV, TDF/FTC + ATV/r, ABC/3TC + EFV, and ABC/3TC + ATV/r were obtained from ACTG 5202 for up to 192 weeks. Antiretroviral drug costs were based on current list prices. Other medical costs (2013 UK pounds sterling), utility values, and mortality rates were obtained from published sources. Base-case, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses (by baseline viral load) were conducted.

RESULTS

Individuals using TDF/FTC-based regimens were predicted to remain on first-line therapy longer and accrue more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than individuals using ABC/3TC-based regimens. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained, TDF/FTC-based regimens were predicted to be cost-effective compared with ABC/3TC-based regimens, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £23 355 for TDF/FTC + EFV vs. ABC/3TC + EFV and £23 785 for TDF/FTC + ATV/r vs. ABC/3TC + ATV/r. Results were generally robust in subgroup, sensitivity, and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of the regimens studied in ACTG 5202 for treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the UK, TDF/FTC-based regimens yielded more favourable health outcomes and were generally predicted to be cost-effective compared with ABC/3TC-based regimens. These results confirm that TDF/FTC-based regimens are not only clinically effective but also cost-effective.

Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing Single and Multi-Tablet Fixed Dose Combination HIV Treatment Regimens

Availability of a single source review of once-daily fixed-dose single tablet regimen (STR) and multiple tablet fixed-dose regimen (MTR) would optimally inform healthcare providers and policy makers involved in the management of population with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).We conducted a meta-analysis of published literature to compare patient adherence, clinical, and cost outcomes of STR to MTR.Published literature in English between 2005 and 2014 was searched using Embase, PubMed (Medline in-process), and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases. Two-level screening was undertaken by 2 independent researchers to finalize articles for evidence synthesis. Adherence, efficacy, safety, tolerability, healthcare resource use (HRU), and costs were assessed comparing STR to MTR. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and heterogeneity examined using meta-regression.Thirty-five articles were identified for qualitative evidence synthesis, of which 9 had quantifiable data for meta-analysis (4 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational studies). Patients on STR were significantly more adherent when compared to patients on MTR of any frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 2.37 [95% CI: 1.68, 3.35], P < 0.001; 4 studies), twice-daily MTR (OR: 2.53 [95% CI: 1.13, 5.66], P = 0.02; 2 studies), and once-daily MTR (OR: 1.81 [95% CI: 1.15, 2.84], P = 0.01; 2 studies). The relative risk (RR) for viral load suppression at 48 weeks was higher (RR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.15], P = .0003; 3 studies) while RR of grade 3 to 4 laboratory abnormalities was lower among patients on STR (RR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.49, 0.94], P = 0.02; 2 studies). Changes in CD4 count at 48 weeks, any severe adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 to 4 AEs, mortality, and tolerability were found comparable between STR and MTR. Several studies reported significant reduction in HRU and costs among STR group versus MTR.Study depicted comparable tolerability, safety (All-SAE and Grade 3-4 AE), and mortality and fewer Grade 3 to 4 lab abnormalities and better viral load suppression and adherence among patients on FDC-containing STR versus MTR; literature depicted favorable HRU and costs for STRs.These findings may help decision makers especially in resource-poor settings to plan for optimal HIV disease management when the choice of both STRs and MTRs are available.

A narrative review of cost-effectiveness analysis of people living with HIV treated with HAART: from interventions to outcomes

Background

Since its introduction in 1996, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which involves the combination of antiretroviral drugs, has resulted in significant improvements in the morbidity, mortality, and life expectancy of HIV-infected patients. Numerous studies of the cost-effectiveness of HAART from different perspectives in HIV have been reported.

Aim

To investigate the economic outcomes and relevance of HAART for people living with HIV.

Materials and methods

A narrative literature review was conducted on 22 peer-reviewed full economic evaluations of people living with HIV treated with different HAART regimens and published in English between January 2005 and December 2014. Information regarding study details, such as interventions, outcomes, and modeling methods, was extracted. The high heterogeneity of the included studies rendered a meta-analysis inappropriate; therefore, we conducted a comparative analysis of studies grouped according to the similarity of the different intervention types and outcomes.

Results

Most of the economic evaluations of HAART focused on comparisons between the specific HAART regimens and others from the following perspectives: injecting drug users versus noninjecting drug users, HIV-infected adults without AIDS versus those with AIDS, regimens based on developed world guidelines versus those based on developing world guidelines, self-administered HAART versus directly observed HAART, and “ideal” versus “typical” regimens.

Conclusion

In general, HAART is more cost-effective than other therapeutic regimens adopted so far. Further investigations, especially head-to-head comparisons of “ideal” and “typical” trials of different regimen combinations, are required to identify the optimal HAART regimens.

Economic Burden of HIV Antiretroviral Therapy Adverse Events in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To estimate health care costs associated with medical events identified as antiretroviral therapy (ART)-attributable adverse events (AEs).

METHODS

During September 2006 to June 2012, adults with ≥1 HIV International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code (042/V08), ≥1 claim for ART prescription (March 2007-June 2011; index date), and continuous health plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and ≥12 months postindex were included (IMS' PharMetrics Plus Health Plan Claims Database). Patients with events of interest/ART claim during preindex period or with pregnancy/hepatitis C virus diagnosis/hepatitis B virus/cancer/tuberculosis during the study period were excluded. Postindex medical events were defined as first diagnosis code of event with ART claim ≤60 days prior to start of the event.

RESULTS

Differences in median total all-cause health care costs observed for diabetes/insulin resistance management (US$14,547 median all-cause health care costs during time periods identified as diabetes/insulin resistance medical events versus US$11,237 without diabetes/insulin resistance events; P=.0021), lipid disorders (US$12,825 versus US$10,033; P=.0004), and renal disorders (US$1389 versus US$0; P<.0001).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Health care costs of ART AEs should be key consideration for payers/providers in HIV management.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiretroviral therapy in a cohort of HIV-infected patients starting first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy during 6 years of observation

Objectives

Costs may play a role in deciding how and when to start highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in a naïve patient. The aim of the present study was to assess the cost- effectiveness of treatment with HAART in a large clinical cohort of naïve adults to determine the potential role of single-tablet regimens in the management of patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis was performed, including a quality-adjusted life year approach.

Results

In total, 741 patients (females comprising 25.5%) were retrospectively included. The mean age was 39 years, the mean CD4 cell count was 266 cells/μL, and the mean viral load was 192,821 copies/mL. The most commonly used backbone was tenofovir + emtricitabine (77.6%); zidovudine + lamivudine was used in 10%, lamivudine + abacavir in 3%, and other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) or NRTI-free regimens in 9.4% of patients. NNRTIs were used in 52.8% of cases, boosted protease inhibitors in 44.1%, and unboosted protease inhibitors and integrase inhibitors in 0.7% and 2.4%, respectively. Starting therapy at CD4 >500 cells/μL and CD4 351–500 cells/μL rather than at <201 cells/μL was the more cost-effective approach. The same consideration was not true comparing current indications with the possibility to start HAART at any CD4 value (eg, >500 cells per μL); in this case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio value was €199,130 per quality-adjusted life year gained, a higher value than the one suggested in guidelines. The single-tablet regimen (STR) invariably dominated any other therapeutic approach. Sensitivity analysis was performed, and starting right away with an STR was cost-effective even when compared with therapeutic strategies contemplating STR as simplification.

Conclusion

By integrating clinical data with economic variables, our study offers an estimate of the cost-effectiveness of the various first-line treatment strategies for patients infected with HIV and provides significant evidence to be used in future prospective pharmacoeconomic evaluations.