Tipranavir: A Protease Inhibitor for HIV Salvage Therapy

Objective:

TO review the efficacy, safety, pharmacology, virology, pharmacokinetics, and resistance of the nonpeptidic protease inhibitor (PI) tipranavir.

Data Sources and Study Selection:

A PubMed search (1966–February 2006) was conducted using the key words tipranavir or PNU-140690, with the limitation of English-language reports. Pharmacokinetic and randomized clinical trials originating from major HIV conferences, such as the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, International AIDS Society, European AIDS Conference, and Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, published only in abstract form, from 2000 to February 2006, were reviewed for relevance and included in this review.

Data Synthesis:

Phase III studies have shown that tipranavir is effective in the treatment of PI-resistant HIV compared with other PI-containing regimens. Adverse effects associated with tipranavir/ritonavir therapy include gastrointestinal reactions, hepatotoxicity, and elevations in cholesterol and triglyceride levels. Resistance data suggest that tipranavir/ritonavir should be reserved for salvage therapy in antiretroviral-experienced patients who have previously failed standard PI therapies. The potential for hepatotoxicity and drug interactions and the expense of tipranavir due to required ritonavir boosting may limit its widespread use.

Conclusions:

Tipranavir/ritonavir is an essential addition to the antiretroviral armamentarium for HIV-infected patients with limited treatment options.

Cost Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Triple Therapy in the Long-Term Management of HIV Patients: Analysis Using Evidence from the PIVOT Trial

BACKGROUND

Protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy can maintain virological suppression in the majority of patients once it has been established on triple therapy and may also have the potential for substantial cost savings arising from the use of fewer drugs. However, the cost effectiveness of PI monotherapy has yet to be demonstrated.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we examine the cost effectiveness of PI monotherapy with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of viral load rebound compared with ongoing triple therapy (OT) in patients with suppressed viral load on combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the UK.

METHODS

The analysis used data from the PIVOT trial in which HIV-positive adults with suppressed viral load for ≥24 weeks on combination ART were randomised to maintain OT or to a strategy of PI monotherapy with prompt return to combination therapy if viral load rebounded. A cost-effectiveness analysis including long-term modelling was conducted. Main outcomes included UK National Health Service (NHS) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with comparative results presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

PI monotherapy was cost saving as a result of large savings in ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of QALYs in the within-trial analysis and marginally less effective with lifetime modelling. In the base-case analysis over 3 years, the incremental total cost per patient was -£6424.11 (95 % confidence interval -7418.84 to -5429.38) and incremental QALYs were 0.0051 (95 % CI -0.0479 to 0.0582), resulting in PI monotherapy 'dominating' OT. Multiple scenario analyses found that PI monotherapy was cost saving with no marked differences in QALYs. Modelling of lifetime costs and QALYs showed that PI monotherapy was associated with significant cost savings and was marginally less effective; PI monotherapy was cost effective at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds in all but one scenario analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Under most assumptions, PI monotherapy appears to be a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with OT for HIV-infected patients who have achieved sustained virological suppression.

Economic and Public Health Impacts of Policies Restricting Access to Hepatitis C Treatment for Medicaid Patients

BACKGROUND

Interferon-free hepatitis C treatment regimens are effective but very costly. The cost-effectiveness, budget, and public health impacts of current Medicaid treatment policies restricting treatment to patients with advanced disease remain unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease compared with a strategy providing unrestricted access to hepatitis C treatment, assess the budget and public health impact of each strategy, and estimate the feasibility and long-term effects of increased access to treatment for patients with hepatitis C.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, we compared two strategies for 45- to 55-year-old Medicaid beneficiaries: 1) Current Practice-only advanced disease is treated before Medicare eligibility and 2) Full Access-both early-stage and advanced disease are treated before Medicare eligibility. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die each year. Morbidity was reduced after successful treatment. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and compared the costs and public health effects of each strategy from the perspective of Medicare alone as well as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective. We varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Full Access was less costly and more effective than Current Practice for all cohorts and perspectives, with differences in cost ranging from $5,369 to $11,960 and in effectiveness from 0.82 to 3.01 quality-adjusted life-years. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Full Access was cost saving in 93% of model iterations. Compared with Current Practice, Full Access averted 5,994 hepatocellular carcinoma cases and 121 liver transplants per 100,000 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease are more costly and less effective than unrestricted, full-access strategies. Collaboration between state and federal payers may be needed to realize the full public health impact of recent innovations in hepatitis C treatment.

Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in Canada

OBJECTIVE

The AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In naive Subjects (ARTEMIS) clinical trial examined the efficacy and safety of two ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r), darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily (QD) and lopinavir/r 800/200 mg daily, both used in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of the darunavir/r regimen compared with the lopinavir/r regimen in treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in Canada.

METHODS

A Markov model with a 3-month cycle time and six CD4 cell-count-based health states (>500, 351-500, 201-500, 101-200, 51-100, and 0-50 cells/mm(3)) followed a cohort of treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection through initial darunavir/r or lopinavir/r combination therapy and a common set of subsequent regimens over the course of their remaining lifetimes. Population characteristics and transition probabilities were estimated from the ARTEMIS clinical trial and other trials. Costs (in 2014 Canadian dollars), utilities, and mortality were estimated from Canadian sources and published literature. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5% per year. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, including a simple indirect comparison of the darunavir/r initial regimen with an atazanavir/r-based regimen.

RESULTS

In the base-case lifetime analysis, individuals receiving initial therapy with the darunavir/r regimen experienced 0.25 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with lower antiretroviral drug costs (-$14,246) and total costs (-$18,402) than individuals receiving the lopinavir/r regimen, indicating that darunavir/r dominated lopinavir/r. In an indirect comparison with an atazanavir/r-based regimen, the darunavir/r regimen remained the dominant choice, but with lower cost savings (-$2,303) and QALY gains (0.02). Results were robust to a wide range of other changes in input parameter values, population characteristics, and modeling assumptions. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the darunavir/r regimen was cost effective compared with the lopinavir/r regimen in over 86% of simulations for willingness-to-pay thresholds between $0 and $100,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Darunavir/r 800/100 mg QD may be a cost-effective PI/r component of initial antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in Canada.

Health technology assessment in the HIV setting: the case of monotherapy

Despite the success of multiple-drug therapy regimens, the idea of treating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection with fewer drugs is captivating due to issues of convenience, long-term toxicities and costs. This study investigated the impact on a local health budget of the introduction of a protease inhibitor (PI)-based antiretroviral monotherapy. An analysis of 23,721 administrative records of HIV-infected patients and a health technology assessment (HTA) were performed to assess cost-effectiveness, budget, organizational, ethics, and equity impact. Data showed that monotherapy had a annual cost of € 7,076 (patient with undetectable viral load) and € 7,860 (patient with detectable viral load), and that its implementation would realise economic savings of between 12 and 24 million euro (between 4.80% and 9.72% of the 2010 total regional budget expenditure for HIV management) in the first year, with cumulated savings of between 48 and 145 million euro over the following five years. Organizational, ethical and equity impact did not indicate any significant differences. The study suggests that for specific categories of patients monotherapy may be an alternative to existing therapies. Its implementation would not result in higher operating costs, and would lead to a reduction in total expenditure.

Cost-minimization comparison of darunavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

Guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services in the US recommend ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) as a preferred protease inhibitor (PI) for HIV-positive antiretroviral-naїve pregnant women. These guidelines also cite ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV + RTV) as an alternative PI in this clinical scenario. The purpose of this analysis was to compare economic outcomes for regimens based on these two treatments.

STUDY DESIGN

An existing discrete event simulation (DES) model was adapted to conduct a cost-minimization analysis comparing the two regimens in HIV-infected women of childbearing age (WOCBA), from the perspective of a healthcare payer in the US.

METHODS

The DES model was used to represent disease states, health events, healthcare encounters, pregnancy, and treatment choices in HIV-infected WOCBA starting treatment with regimens based on either LPV/r or DRV + RTV. It also incorporated parameters for individual patient characteristics, and for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment effectiveness, treatment sequencing, clinical progression, and resource use. Potential events included scheduled physician visits; viral suppression; viral rebound; AIDS-related complications; CHD events; treatment discontinuation and switching; ARV treatment side-effects (SE); and death. The primary outcomes were discounted 5-year and 10-year healthcare costs. Alternative scenarios considered different rates of switching from DRV + RTV to LPV/r upon conception.

RESULTS

Compared with DRV + RTV, LPV/r was associated with similar clinical outcomes while offering savings at the 5- and 10-year horizons (of $24,904 and $43,502 per patient, respectively), and in extensive sensitivity analyses. The main driver of the savings was the difference in cost between PIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Starting HIV-infected ARV-treatment-naїve WOCBA on an LPV/r-based regimen is cost-saving and provides similar patient outcomes compared to a DRV + RTV-based regimen.

The potential cost and benefits of raltegravir in simplified second-line therapy among HIV infected patients in Nigeria and South Africa

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need to improve the evidence base for provision of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) following first-line virological failure. This is particularly the case in Sub-Saharan Africa where 70% of all people living with HIV/AIDS (PHA) reside. The aim of this study was to simulate the potential risks and benefits of treatment simplification in second-line therapy compared to the current standard of care (SOC) in a lower-middle income and an upper-middle income country in Sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation model to compare outcomes associated with reducing treatment discontinuations between current SOC for second-line therapy in South Africa and Nigeria and an alternative regimen: ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) combined with raltegravir (RAL). We used published studies and collaborating sites to estimate efficacy, adverse effect and cost. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2011 USD per quality adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Reducing treatment discontinuations with LPV/r+RAL resulted in an additional 0.4 discounted QALYs and increased the undiscounted life expectancy by 0.8 years per person compared to the current SOC. The average incremental cost was $6,525 per treated patient in Nigeria and $4,409 per treated patient in South Africa. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $16,302/QALY gained and $11,085/QALY gained for Nigeria and South Africa, respectively. Our results were sensitive to the probability of ART discontinuation and the unit cost for RAL.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir was projected to be cost-effective in South Africa. However, at its current price, it is unlikely to be cost-effective in Nigeria.

[Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis between darunavir/ritonavir and other protease inhibitors in treatment-naive human immunodeficiency syndrome type 1-infected patients in Spain]

INTRODUCTION

GESIDA (AIDS Study Group) has proposed preferred regimens of antiretroviral treatment as initial therapy in HIV infected patients. The objective of this analysis is to compare the costs and effectiveness of darunavir/r QD and other ritonavir-boosted (/r) protease inhibitors (PIs) currently recommended in GESIDA guidelines for treatment-naïve patients.

METHODS

A cost-efficacy model compared the boosted PIs recommended as preferred or alternative treatment choices, each used with a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Efficacy was measured by 48-week virological response (viral load < 50 copies/mL) adjusted by baseline viral load and CD4 cell count. To generate efficiency frontiers and cost-efficacy ratios, one-year antiretroviral therapy costs in Spain, and 48-week efficacy values were used.

RESULTS

The model estimated that starting treatment with darunavir/r QD was the most cost-effective choice compared with the other preferred PI/r based therapies. The average cost per patient with a virological response was lower for darunavir/r QD (13,420€) than for atazanavir/r QD (14,000€), or lopinavir/r BID (13,815€). Among the preferred PI/r-based therapies, darunavir/r QD also was estimated to be the most efficient option for treatment-naïve patients. Atazanavir/r QD and lopinavir/r BID were found to be «dominated» by darunavir/r) and, consequently, were outside the efficiency frontier of PI/r-based first-line treatment. Given a fixed budget of 10 million euros for PI/r-based first-line therapy, the model estimated that darunavir/r QD would yield more responders (745) than atazanavir/r QD (714), or lopinavir/r BID (724). At the same time, darunavir/r QD would reduce the number of individuals failing treatment (150) compared with atazanavir/r QD (172) and lopinavir/r BID (286).

CONCLUSIONS

In this model, darunavir/r QD was found to be the most cost-effective choice, among the preferred PI/r-based therapies recommended in the Spanish guidelines for treatment-naïve patients.

Economic and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) comparison of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) based regimens for antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve and -experienced United Kingdom patients in 2011

BACKGROUND

Using a United Kingdom (UK)-based National Health Services perspective for 2011 this study first estimated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact implications for lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) vs atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) treatment of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve patients and secondly examined the long-term health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and economic implications for LPV/r vs ATV+RTV treatment of ART-experienced patients.

METHODS

A previously published Markov model that integrates epidemiological data of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with predictors of coronary heart disease (CHD) was modified under a clearly specified set of assumptions to reflect viral load (VL) suppression profiles and other differences for these two regimens, applying results from the CASTLE study in ART-naïve patients and using data from BMS-045 in ART-experienced patients. ART costs were referenced to current (2011) pricing guidelines in the UK. Medical care costs reflected UK treatment patterns and relevant drug pricing. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per year. Costs are expressed in British pounds (£) and life expectancy in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In the ART-naïve subjects, the model predicted a marginal improved life expectancy of 0.031 QALYs (11 days) for the ATV+RTV regimen as a result of predicted CHD outcomes based on lower increases in cholesterol levels compared with the LPV/r regimen. The model demonstrated cost savings with the LPV/r regimen. The total lifetime cost savings was £4070 per patient for the LPV/r regimen. LPV/r saved £2133 and £3409 per patient at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Referenced to LPV/r, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ATV+RTV was £149,270/QALY. For ART-experienced patients VL suppression differences favored LPV/r, while CHD risk associated with elevated total cholesterol marginally favored ATV+RTV, resulting in a net improvement in life expectancy of 0.31 QALYs (106 days) for LPV/r. Five-year costs were £5538 per patient greater for ATV+RTV, with a discounted lifetime saving of £1445 per LPV/r patient. LPV/r was modestly dominant economically, producing better outcomes and cost savings.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this study include uncertainty related to how well the model's assumptions capture current practice, as well as the validity of the model parameters used. This study was limited to using aggregated data in the public domain from the two clinical trials. Thus, some of the model parameters may reflect limitations due to trial design and data aggregation bias. This study has attempted to illuminate the effect of these limitations by presenting the results of the comprehensive sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on 2011 costs of HIV in the UK and the published efficacy data from the CASTLE and BMS-045 studies, ATV+RTV-based regimens are not expected to be a cost-effective use of resources for ART-naïve patients similar to patients in the CASTLE study, nor for ART-experienced patients based on the only published comparison of ATV+RTV and LPV/r.

Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV + r) versus lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both with tenofovir-emtricitabine, in US HIV-infected patients initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy.

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model was developed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on CD4 and HIV RNA levels, coronary heart disease (CHD), AIDS, opportunistic infections (OIs), diarrhea, and hyperbilirubinemia. A million-member cohort of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve adults progressed at 3-month intervals through eight health states. Baseline characteristics, virologic suppression, cholesterol changes, and diarrhea and hyperbilirubinemia rates were based on 96-week CASTLE trial results. HIV mortality, OI rates, adherence, costs, utilities, and CHD risk were from literature and experts.

LIMITATIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) may be overestimated because the ATV + r treatment effect was based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The QALY weights used for diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, and CHD events are uncertain; however, the ICER remained < $50,000/QALY when these values were varied in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

ATV + r patients received first-line therapy longer than LPV/r patients (97.3 vs. 70.7 months), had longer quality-adjusted survival (11.02 vs. 10.76 years), similar overall survival (18.52 vs. 18.51 years), and higher costs ($275,986 vs. 269,160). ATV+r [corrected] patients had lower rates of AIDS (19.08 vs. 20.05 cases/1000 patient-years), OIs (0.44 vs.0.52), diarrhea (1.27 vs. 6.26), and CHD events(5.44 vs. 5.51), but higher hyperbilirubinemia rates (6.99 vs. 0.25. ATV + r added 0.26 QALYs at a cost of $6826, for $26,421/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

By more effectively reducing viral load with less gastrointestinal toxicity and a better lipid profile, ATV + r lowered rates of AIDS and CHD, increased quality-adjusted survival, and was cost effective (< $50,000/QALY) compared with LPV/r.

A review of economic evaluations of darunavir boosted by low-dose ritonavir in treatment-experienced persons living with HIV infection

Darunavir boosted by low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r), at a daily dose of 600/100 mg twice a day (bid), has been shown to be superior to alternative highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens for the management of treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in the phase IIb POWER trials and the phase III TITAN trial. Economic analyses of different types that have been performed for several countries to investigate the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of DRV/r 600/100 mg bid for treatment-experienced people living with HIV (PLHIV) based on the clinical data gathered in the POWER and TITAN trials are reviewed for consistency and their value to different decision-makers is assessed. Cost-utility analyses for the USA and several European countries indicate that DRV/r-based HAART is cost effective compared with other standard of care protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens in PLHIV with evidence of PI resistance. For all of these countries, the estimated cost-utility ratio is well below typical benchmark values and these ratios are robust, as demonstrated by one-way sensitivity and variability analyses and multi-way probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Studies using other metrics including the average 1-year drug cost per patient with a plasma HIV-RNA level less than 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks, the incremental drug cost per additional patient with a plasma HIV-RNA level less than 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks, the total (antiretroviral and non-antiretroviral) costs during the first year of treatment, and the total healthcare budget impact during the first 5 years of treatment provided further evidence of the positive economic outcomes with the use of DRV/r in treatment-experienced PLHIV. Different measures of economic outcomes are useful for different types of decision-makers and different types of decisions. In general, the results of these different types of analyses will be consistent with each other. For darunavir, the economic analyses reviewed in this paper demonstrate that the use of DRV/r 600/100 mg bid in the management of HIV-infected, treatment-experienced adults who have failed at least one of the other currently available PIs is cost effective and may be cost saving.

Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in protease inhibitor-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK

BACKGROUND

Two phase II trials (POWER 1 and 2) have demonstrated that darunavir co-administered with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r) provides significant clinical benefit compared with control protease inhibitors (PIs) in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults, when co-administered with optimized background therapy (OBR).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether DRV/r is cost effective compared with control PIs, from the perspective of Belgian, Italian, Swedish and UK reimbursement authorities, when used in treatment-experienced patients similar to those included in the POWER 1 and 2 trials.

METHODS

An existing Markov model containing health states defined by CD4 cell count ranges (> 500, 351-500, 201-350, 101-200, 51-100 and 0-50 cells/mm³) and death was adapted for use in four European healthcare settings. Baseline demographics, CD4 cell count distribution and antiretroviral drug usage reflected those reported in the POWER 1 and 2 trials. Virological/immunological response rates and matching transition probabilities over the patient's lifetime were based on results from the POWER trials and published data. After treatment failure, patients were assumed to switch to a tipranavir-containing regimen plus OBR. For each CD4 cell count range, utility values and HIV-related mortality rates were obtained from the published literature. National all-cause mortality data and published data on the increased risk of non HIV-related mortality in HIV-infected individuals were taken into account in the model. Data from observational studies conducted in each healthcare setting were used to determine resource-use patterns and costs associated with each CD4 cell count range. Unit costs were derived from official local sources; a lifetime horizon was taken and discount rates were selected based on local guidelines.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of up to 1.397 in Belgium, over 1.171 in Italy, 1.142 in Sweden and 1.091 in the UK were predicted when DRV/r-based therapy was used instead of control PI-based treatment. The base-case analyses predicted an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €11,438/QALY in Belgium, €12,122/QALY in Italy,€10,942/QALY in Sweden and €16,438/QALY in the UK. Assuming an acceptability threshold of €30,000/QALY, DRV/r-based therapy remained cost effective over all parameter ranges tested in extensive one-way sensitivity analyses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 95% (Belgium), 97% (Italy), 92% (Sweden) or 78% (UK) probability of attaining an ICER below this threshold.

CONCLUSION

From four European payer perspectives, DRV/r-based antiretroviral therapy is predicted to be cost effective compared with currently available control PIs, when both are used with an OBR in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults who failed to respond to more than one PI-containing regimen.

Modelling the budget impact of darunavir in the treatment of highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in France

BACKGROUND

A key element for payers in the assessment of the economic profile of a medication is its anticipated impact on the evolution of healthcare budgets.

OBJECTIVES

To forecast the impact of the use of darunavir with low-dose ritonavir 600/100 mg twice a day (bid) in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults who have failed one or more protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimen on the budget of the French Sickness Fund (French healthcare system) over a 3-year time horizon.

METHODS

A transition state model based on disease severity was developed that compared the evolution of antiretroviral and non-antiretroviral-related direct costs of care in the target population over 3 years (2007-2009) under two scenarios: (1) darunavir enters the French market in year 1; (2) darunavir is not available to the target population during 2007-2009. Model inputs were derived from a targeted analysis of the French hospital database in HIV, the darunavir POWER 1 and 2 trials and other relevant clinical studies.

RESULTS

In the scenario where darunavir was available from year 1, the proportion of patients in the lower, more costly CD4 cell count strata (≤ 100 cells per mm³) was consistently lower than in the scenario without darunavir in each year of the model (17.0% vs 19.2%, 13.9% vs 18.3% and 10.8% vs 16.8% for years 1, 2 and 3, respectively). As a result, over the entire 3-year period, the net increase of antiretroviral drug costs (+ 5.6 million Euros; €), resulting from the substitution of older, cheaper PIs by darunavir, is expected to be fully compensated by savings in hospitalization costs (€-9.7 million) and expenditures for other HIV-related (non-antiretroviral) medications (€-7.3 million), leading to a net saving of €11.4 million or 2.9% of the total budget in the scenario without darunavir. Various sensitivity analyses confirmed these projected savings.

CONCLUSION

The use of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 600/100 mg bid, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, in highly pre-treated, HIV-infected adults who have failed one or more PI-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen is not expected to increase the budget of the French healthcare system, in comparison with a scenario without darunavir. Further research is needed to estimate the budget impact of the use of DRV/r in less treatment-experienced, HIV-infected individuals in France.

Costs to achieve undetectable HIV RNA with darunavir-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy in highly pretreated patients: the POWER experience

BACKGROUND

Very few studies have evaluated the cost of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) per successful treatment in HIV-infected patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost of achieving undetectable plasma HIV-RNA levels in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults receiving darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r 600 mg/100 mg twice a day) or control protease inhibitor (PI)-based HAART.

METHODS

The mean annual per-patient cost of DRV/r and control PI-based HAART was determined from the proportional use of antiretroviral agents in the DRV/r and control PI arms of the pooled POWER 1 and 2 trials, applying drug acquisition costs for 13 healthcare settings. The mean annual cost per patient of achieving undetectable plasma HIV-RNA levels (<50 copies/mL) was calculated by dividing the cost of each treatment by the proportion of patients with undetectable plasma HIV-RNA levels after 48 weeks in the DRV/r (45%) and control PI (10%) arms of the POWER trials.

RESULTS

Whereas absolute costs of treatment were 1-19% higher with DRV/r versus control PI-based HAART depending on the healthcare setting, the mean annual per-patient cost of achieving undetectable plasma HIV-RNA levels was 73-78% lower. These cost savings were maintained in the sensitivity analyses, adjusting for control PI and enfuvirtide use, and the number of active drugs in the background regimen. The incremental annual cost per additional patient achieving undetectable plasma HIV-RNA levels with DRV/r versus control PI-based HAART in POWER 1 and 2 (£4148) compared favourably with that determined for enfuvirtide (£137, 740; TORO trials) and tipranavir/ritonavir (£32,176; RESIST) versus control therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

DRV/r-based HAART provided consistent reductions in the cost of achieving undetectable plasma HIV-RNA levels compared with control PI-based therapy in highly treatment-experienced patients across various healthcare settings. The incremental cost per additional patient achieving undetectable plasma HIV-RNA levels with DRV/r versus control PI-based HAART was also lower than that calculated for other treatment options in this population. These results suggest that DRV/r is an economically viable option for highly treatment-experienced patients.

Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Darunavir is a new protease inhibitor (PI) that is co-administered with low-dose ritonavir and has demonstrated substantial efficacy in clinical trials of highly treatment-experienced patients when combined with an optimized background regimen (with or without enfuvirtide). This study estimates the cost effectiveness of darunavir with ritonavir (DRV/r) in this population over 5-year and lifetime time horizons in the USA.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to follow a treatment-experienced HIV-1 cohort through six health states, based on CD4 cell count: greater than 500, 351-500, 201-350, 101-200, 51-100 and 0-50 cells/mm³, and death. The magnitude of the CD4 cell count increase and duration of increasing and stable periods were derived from week 48 DRV/r clinical trial results (POWER 1 and 2). The treatment pathway assumed one regimen switch following treatment failure on the initial regimen. The use of antiretroviral drugs was based on usage in DRV/r clinical trials. US daily wholesale acquisition costs were calculated using the recommended daily doses. For each CD4 cell count range, utility values, HIV-1-related mortality rates and costs for medical resources (other than antiretroviral drug costs) were obtained from published literature. Non-HIV-1-related mortality rates were calculated by applying a relative risk value to the US general population age and gender-specific mortality rates. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and variability analysis were performed.

RESULTS

In a 5-year analysis, patients receiving DRV/r experienced 3.80 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incurred total medical costs of US$217,288, while those receiving control PIs experienced 3.60 QALYs and incurred costs of US$218,962. DRV/r was both more effective and less costly than control PIs. For the lifetime analysis, the QALYs and lifetime medical costs with DRV/r were 10.03 and US$565,358, compared with 8.76 and US$527,287 with control PIs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DRV/r compared with control PIs was US$30,046. One-way sensitivity analyses for both time horizons indicated that the results were most sensitive to changes in the rate of CD4 cell count change during stable and declining periods (lifetime only), duration of stable period (5-year only) and HIV-1-related mortality rates. The results of the variability analysis were most sensitive to the model time horizon. Nevertheless, for all ranges and scenarios tested in these analyses, the incremental cost per QALY gained remained below US$50,000. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 0.921 and 0.950 probability of a cost-effectiveness ratio below US$50,000 per QALY for the 5-year and lifetime time horizon, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

DRV/r is predicted to be cost effective compared with control PI in highly treatment-experienced patients and is predicted to yield an average of 0.20 additional QALYs per treatment-experienced patient over 5 years and 1.27 additional QALYs over a lifetime in this population.

US cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults with evidence of protease inhibitor resistance included in the TITAN Trial

INTRODUCTION

The phase III TITAN trial evaluated the use of darunavir with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r) 600/100 mg twice daily (bid) compared with lopinavir with low-dose ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive patients. This study estimates the cost effectiveness of DRV/r from a US societal perspective when compared with LPV/r in treatment-experienced patients with a profile similar to those TITAN patients who had one or more International AIDS Society - USA (IAS-USA) primary protease inhibitor (PI) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) at baseline. This population had less advanced HIV disease and a broader range of previous PI exposure/failure (0 - ≥ 2 PIs) at enrollment than those in the darunavir phase IIb POWER trials.

METHODS

An existing Markov model containing six health states defined by CD4 cell count range (>500, 351-500, 201-350, 101-200, 51-100 and 0-50 cells/mm³) and an absorbing state of death was adapted. Baseline demographics, CD4 cell count distribution and antiretroviral drug usage, virological response (at week 24), and immunological response estimates and matching transition probabilities were based on data collected directly from the one or more IAS-USA PI mutation subpopulation during the first 48 weeks of the TITAN trial, as well as from published literature. Patients were assumed to switch to a regimen containing tipranavir plus an optimized background regimen after treatment failure. For each CD4 cell count range or health state, the utility values, HIV and non-HIV-related mortality rates, and non-antiretroviral-related cost of HIV care estimates were derived from published literature. Unit costs were derived from official local sources. A lifetime horizon was taken in the base-case analysis.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis predicted discounted quality-adjusted survival gains of 0.493 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for DRV/r compared with LPV/r, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$23,057 per QALY gained over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 0.754 probability of an ICER below the threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained. DRV/r remained cost effective over all parameter ranges tested in extensive one-way sensitivity analyses and variability analyses, which examined the impact of input parameter uncertainty and changes in model assumptions and treatment patterns, respectively. Shortening the model time horizon had the largest impact on the ICER, reducing it most notably to US$4919 with a 10-year time horizon.

CONCLUSION

From a US societal perspective and based on an analysis of the patients with primary IAS-USA PI RAMs enrolled in the darunavir phase III TITAN trial, a highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimen containing DRV/r 600/100 mg bid is estimated to be a cost-effective therapy when compared with a HAART regimen containing LPV/r, for the management of treatment-experienced, PI-resistant, HIV-infected adults with a broad range of previous PI use/failure.

Predicting direct costs of HIV care during the first year of darunavir-based highly active antiretroviral therapy using CD4 cell counts: evidence from POWER

BACKGROUND

Given the association between CD4 cell counts and HIV-related morbidity/mortality, new antiretroviral therapies could potentially lower the direct costs of HIV care by raising CD4 cell counts.

OBJECTIVES

To predict the effects of the ritonavir-boosted, HIV protease inhibitor (PI) darunavir on the direct costs of care, while accounting for CD4 cell counts, during the first year of therapy in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in different healthcare settings.

METHODS

The mean annual per-patient cost of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) and control PI-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) was calculated from the proportional use of antiretroviral agents in the DRV/r and control PI arms of the pooled POWER 1 and 2 trials, applying drug-acquisition costs for five healthcare settings. Non-antiretroviral-related costs by CD4 cell count, derived from non-interventional studies in the same settings, were applied to the POWER data (proportion of patients with CD4 cell counts in different strata at week 48) to estimate mean annual non-antiretroviral-related costs per patient in patients receiving DRV/r or control PI-based HAART during year 1.

RESULTS

Across all settings, the mean annual per-patient cost of DRV/r-based treatment was 2-19% higher than that of control PI-based therapy during the first year of therapy. By raising CD4 cell counts, however, DRV/r-based regimens were predicted to lower mean annual non-antiretroviral-related costs by 16-38% compared with control PI-based therapy. When combined, the total annual per-patient cost of HIV care during the first year of therapy was estimated to be 7% lower in the DRV/r compared with the control PI arm using US data, 8% lower using Swedish data, budget neutral using UK and Belgian data and 5% higher using Italian data.

CONCLUSIONS

Darunavir-based HAART may lower non-antiretroviral-related costs compared with control PI-based therapy in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients during the first year of therapy by improving patients' CD4 cell counts. These costs could partly/fully offset the increased acquisition cost of DRV/r in this patient population over the same period.

Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive, protease inhibitor-resistant, HIV-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK

BACKGROUND

Using data from the phase IIb POWER trials, darunavir boosted with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r; 600/100 mg twice daily; bid)-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) was shown to be significantly more efficacious and cost effective than other protease inhibitor (PI)-based therapy in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults. Furthermore, in the phase III TITAN trial (TMC114-C214), DRV/r 600/100 mg bid-based HAART generated a superior 48-week virological response rate compared with standard-of-care lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r; 400/100 mg bid)-based therapy in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive patients, and in particular those with one or more International AIDS Society - USA (IAS-USA) primary PI resistance-associated mutations at baseline. These patients had a broader degree of previous PI use/failure (0 - ≥ 2) than the POWER patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether DRV/r 600/100 mg bid-based HAART is cost effective compared with LPV/r-based therapy, from the perspective of Belgian, Italian, Swedish and UK reimbursement authorities, when used in treatment-experienced patients similar to TITAN patients with one or more IAS-USA primary PI mutations at baseline.

METHODS

An existing Markov model containing health states defined by CD4 cell count ranges (>500, 351-500, 201-350, 101-200, 51-100 and 0-50 cells/mm³) and an absorbing state of death was adapted for use in the above-mentioned healthcare settings. Baseline demographics, CD4 cell count distribution, antiretroviral drug usage, virological/immunological response rates and matching transition probabilities were based on data collected during the first 48 weeks of therapy in the modelled subgroup of TITAN patients and the published literature. After treatment failure, patients were assumed to switch to a follow-on combination regimen. For each health state, utility values and mortality rates were obtained from the published literature. Data from local observational studies (Belgium, Sweden and Italy) or the published literature (UK) were used to determine resource-use patterns and costs associated with each CD4 cell count range. Unit costs were derived from official local sources; a lifetime horizon was taken and discount rates were chosen based on local guidelines.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis predicted quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.785 in Belgium, 0.608 in Italy, 0.584 in Sweden and 0.550 in the UK when DRV/r-based therapy was used instead of LPV/r-based treatment. The estimated base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were €6964/QALY gained in Belgium, €9277/QALY gained in Italy, €6868 (SEK69,687)/QALY gained in Sweden and €14,778 (£12 612)/QALY gained in the UK. Assuming a threshold of €30,000/QALY gained, DRV/r-based therapy remained cost effective over most parameter ranges tested in extensive one-way sensitivity analyses. The variation of immunological response rates and the time horizon were identified as important drivers of cost effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a greater than 70% probability of achieving an ICER below this threshold in all four healthcare settings.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of Belgian, Italian, Swedish and UK payers, DRV/r 600/100 mg bid-based HAART is predicted to be cost effective compared with LPV/r 400/100 mg bid-based therapy, when used to manage treatment experienced, lopinavir-naive, PI-resistant, HIV-infected adults with a broad range of previous PI use/failure.

Expanding antiretroviral options in resource-limited settings--a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for treatment of HIV in resource-limited settings call for 2 antiretroviral regimens. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of increasing the number of antiretroviral regimens is unknown.

METHODS

Using a simulation model, we compared the survival and costs of current WHO regimens with two 3-regimen strategies: an initial regimen of 3 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors followed by the WHO regimens and the WHO regimens followed by a regimen with a second-generation boosted protease inhibitor (2bPI). We evaluated monitoring with CD4 counts only and with both CD4 counts and viral load. We used cost and effectiveness data from Cape Town and tested all assumptions in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Over the lifetime of the cohort, 25.6% of individuals failed both WHO regimens by virologic criteria. However, when patients were monitored using CD4 counts alone, only 6.5% were prescribed additional highly active antiretroviral therapy due to missed and delayed detection of failure. The life expectancy gain for individuals who took a 2bPI was 6.7-8.9 months, depending on the monitoring strategy. When CD4 alone was available, adding a regimen with a 2bPI was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2581 per year of life gained, and when viral load was available, the ratio was $6519 per year of life gained. Strategies with triple-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor regimens in initial therapy were dominated. Results were sensitive to the price of 2bPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 in 4 individuals who start highly active antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa will fail currently recommended regimens. At current prices, adding a regimen with a 2bPI is cost effective for South Africa and other middle-income countries by WHO standards.

Simplification strategies to reduce antiretroviral drug exposure: progress and prospects

Current U.S. guidelines for initial therapy of HIV type-1 (HIV-1) infection recommend daily, lifelong treatment with a combination of three antiretroviral drugs consisting of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or a protease inhibitor. Although this approach has been successful in reducing morbidity and mortality from HIV-1 infection, concerns remain about adverse events from chronic drug exposure, the requirement for daily medication adherence, the risk of HIV-1 drug resistance and high treatment costs. The availability of antiretrovirals that are coformulated and dosed once daily have reduced pill burden and have simplified dosing schedules, but have not lowered drug exposure or cost. These limitations have stimulated research into drug-sparing strategies including intermittent therapy and simplified maintenance regimens. Randomized clinical trials have shown greater mortality with intermittent therapy compared with continuous therapy leading to rejection of this strategy. Pilot studies of simplified maintenance therapy with a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor alone have shown more promise, although concerns remain. This article reviews progress in the simplification of antiretroviral therapy, recent clinical trial results and prospects for the future.

Comparison of Markov model and discrete-event simulation techniques for HIV

BACKGROUND

Markov models have been the standard framework for predicting long-term clinical and economic outcomes using the surrogate marker endpoints from clinical trials. However, they are complex, have intensive data requirements and are often difficult for decision makers to understand. Recent developments in modelling software have made it possible to use discrete-event simulation (DES) to model outcomes in HIV. Using published results from 48-week trial data as model inputs, Markov model and DES modelling approaches were compared in terms of clinical outcomes at 5 years and lifetime cost-effectiveness estimates.

METHODS

A randomly selected cohort of 100 antiretroviral-naive patients with a mean baseline CD4+ T-cell count of 175 cells/mm3 treated with lopinavir/ritonavir was selected from Abbott study M97-720. Parameter estimates from this cohort were used to populate both a Markov and a DES model, and the long-term estimates for these cohorts were compared. The models were then modified using the relative risk of undetectable viral load as reported for atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in the published BMS 008 study. This allowed us to compare the mean cost effectiveness of the models. The clinical outcomes included mean change in CD4+ T-cell count, and proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA (viral load [VL]) <50 copies/mL, VL 50-400 copies/mL and VL >400 copies/mL. US wholesale acquisition costs (year 2007 values) were used in the mean cost-effectiveness analysis, and the cost and QALY data were discounted at 3%.

RESULTS

The results show a slight predictive advantage of the DES model for clinical outcomes. The DES model could capture direct input of CD4+ T-cell count, and proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA VL <50 copies/mL, VL 50-400 copies/mL and VL >400 copies/mL over a 48-week period, which the Markov model could not. The DES and Markov model estimates were similar to the actual clinical trial estimates for 1-year clinical results; however, the DES model predicted more detailed outcomes and had slightly better long-term (5-year) predictive validity than the Markov model. Similar cost estimates were derived from the Markov model and the DES. Both models predict cost savings at 5 and 10 years, and over a lifetime for the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment regimen as compared with an atazanavir regimen.

CONCLUSION

The DES model predicts the course of a disease naturally, with few restrictions. This may give the model superior face validity with decision makers. Furthermore, this model automatically provides a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which is cumbersome to perform with a Markov model. DES models allow inclusion of more variables without aggregation, which may improve model precision. The capacity of DES for additional data capture helps explain why this model consistently predicts better survival and thus greater savings than the Markov model. The DES model is better than the Markov model in isolating long-term implications of small but important differences in crucial input data.