Patients' Willingness to Take Multiple-Tablet Antiretroviral Therapy Regimens for Treatment of HIV

First-line antiretroviral therapy initiation for newly diagnosed people with HIV in the Netherlands: A retrospective analysis from 2016 to 2020

INTRODUCTION

HIV treating physicians in the Netherlands follow the guidelines of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Most of these recommended initial regimens are single-tablet regimens (STRs), which incur higher costs. By the end of 2017, generic NRTI backbones had become widely available, offering a potentially cheaper multi-tablet regimen. This study aimed to evaluate guideline compliance in people with HIV who started antiretroviral therapy (ART), the uptake of generic multi-tablet regimens (gMTRs), and associated medication costs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Dutch HIV Monitoring Foundation to determine the proportion of treatment-naïve people entering care who initiated ART according to the DHHS and type of ART regimens prescribed between January 2016 and December 2020. We analyzed ART prescriptions, both at the national level and per individual HIV treatment centers. We calculated the monthly ART costs based on Dutch medicine prices listed on www.medicijnkosten.nl for each calendar year.

RESULTS

In 2016, an integrase inhibitor-containing regimen was initiated in 77.3% which increased to 87.8% in 2020. The compliance rate to DHHS-recommended initial regimens ranged from 82.8% in 2016 to 90.9% in 2020. Most patients received single-tablet regimens, 81.3% in 2016 to 60.3% in 2020. After the introduction the gMTRs showed a steady increase from 17.8% in 2018 to 37.8% in 2020. The cost of the first-line regimen per patient decreased by 22.9% in 2020 compared with 2017. The decrease was larger in centers where treatment-naïve individuals with HIV were preferentially initiated on a gMTR.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high compliance to the "DHHS-recommended initial regimens for most people with HIV" in the Netherlands. Most people who initiated ART received STRs, although the percentage of people who started on STRs gradually decreased over time. The use of gMTRs increased over time and was associated with lower medication costs.

Prescriptions of generic antiretroviral drugs in three healthcare centers in the Paris area, France

In a retrospective study conducted in three hospitals in Paris, generic antiretroviral accounted for 30.2% of all prescriptions. Tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) was the most prescribed generic ART (82.3% of generic prescriptions). Generic ART (gART) was more likely to be prescribed to women, to patients less than 50 years, and with recent HIV diagnosis less than 3 years. Physicians prescribed more gART if they were men, older than 55 years or worked at a university teaching hospital.

De-simplifying antiretroviral therapy from a single-tablet to a two-tablet regimen: Acceptance, patient-reported outcomes, and cost savings in a multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Antiretroviral therapy (ART), which is increasingly used by people with HIV, accounts for significant care costs, particularly because of single-tablet regimens (STRs). This study explored de-simplification to a two-tablet regimen (TTR) for cost reduction. The objectives of this study were: (1) acceptance of de-simplification, (2) patient-reported outcomes, and (3) cost savings.

METHODS

All individuals on Triumeq®, Atripla® or Eviplera® in five HIV clinics in the Netherlands were eligible. Healthcare providers informed individuals of this study. After inclusion, individuals were free to de-simplify. An electronic questionnaire was sent to assess study acceptance, adherence, quality of life (SF12) and treatment satisfaction (HIVTSQ). After 3 and 12 months, questionnaires were repeated. Cost savings were calculated using Dutch drug prices.

RESULTS

In total, 283 individuals were included, of whom 55.5% agreed to de-simplify their ART, with a large variability between treatment centres: 41.1-74.2%. Individuals who were willing to de-simplify tended to be older, had a longer history of HIV diagnosis, and used more co-medication than those who preferred to remain on an STR regimen. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life and treatment satisfaction, showed no significant difference between people with HIV who switched to a TTR and those who remained on an STR regimen. Furthermore, we observed a 17.8% reduction in drug costs in our cohort of people with HIV who were initially on an STR.

CONCLUSIONS

De-simplification from an STR to a TTR within the Dutch healthcare setting has been demonstrated as feasible, leads to significant cost reductions and should be discussed with every eligible person with HIV in the Netherlands.

Patient-reported outcomes among people living with HIV on single- versus multi-tablet regimens: Data from a real-life setting

BACKGROUND

The use of single-tablet regimens (STRs) in HIV treatment is ubiquitous. However, reintroducing the (generic) components as multi-tablet regimens (MTRs) could be an interesting cost-reducing strategy. It is essential to involve patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) to examine the effects of such an approach. Hence, this study compared PROs of people living with HIV taking an STR versus a MTR in a real world setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This longitudinal study included 188 people living with HIV. 132 remained on a MTR and 56 switched to an STR. At baseline, months 1-3-6-12-18 and 24, participants filled in questionnaires on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depressive symptoms, HIV symptoms, neurocognitive complaints (NCC), treatment satisfaction and adherence. Generalized linear mixed models and generalized estimation equations mixed models were built.

RESULTS

Clinical parameters and PROs of the two groups were comparable at baseline. Neurocognitive complaints and treatment satisfaction did differ over time among the groups. In the STR-group, the odds of having NCC increased monthly by 4,1% as compared to the MTR-group (p = 0.035). Moreover, people taking an STR were more satisfied with their treatment after 6 months: the median change score was high: 24 (IQR 7,5-29). Further, treatment satisfaction showed a contrary evolution in the groups: the estimated state score of the STR-group increased by 3,3 while it decreased by 0,2 in the MTR-group (p = 0.003). No differences over time between the groups were observed with regard to HRQoL, HIV symptoms, depressive symptoms and adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurocognitive complaints were more frequently reported among people on an STR versus MTR. This finding contrasts with the higher treatment satisfaction in the STR-group over time. The long-term effects of both PROs should guide the decision-making on STRs vs. (generic) MTRs.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Can we talk about price with patients when choosing antiretroviral therapy? A survey with people living with HIV and prescribers in France

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate people living with HIV (PLWH) and HIV specialist prescribers' perception of discussing antiretroviral therapy (ART) price in PLWH's care and the acceptability of choosing or switching to various types of less expensive ARTs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional surveys (one in a convenience sample of PLWH and one in a voluntary response sample of HIV specialist prescribers).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The surveys were conducted among PLHW attending an HIV clinic in the North of Paris (cohort of 4922 PLWH in 2016), and HIV specialists working in French HIV clinics (210 across 12 districts/28), between January and June 2016.

METHOD

Self-administered questionnaires were constructed using data collected during focus groups with PLWH and prescribers. Pretests were carried out to select the questions and items. Descriptive analyses of the 129 complete questionnaires of PLWH and 79 of prescribers are presented.

RESULTS

Among PLWH, 128/129 were on ART and 54% (69/128) gave a fair estimation of the price of their current regimen. Among prescribers, 24% (19/79) thought that their patients knew this price. Taking into account the price of ART was not perceived as a negative step in the history of French response to HIV epidemic for 53% (68/129) of PLWH and 82% (65/79) of prescribers. Seventy-seven PLWH (60%) would agree to switch to less expensive antiretroviral regimens (as effective and with similar adverse events) if pills were bigger; 42 (33%) if there were more daily doses, and 37 (29%) if there were more pills per dose; prescribers were more circumspect.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of PLWH gave a fair estimate of their ART price and this seemed unexpected by HIV specialists. Consideration of drug prices when choosing ART was perceived as conceivable by PLWH and prescribers if effectiveness and tolerance were also considered.

De-simplifying single-tablet antiretroviral treatments for cost savings in France: From the patient perspectives to a 6-month follow-up on generics

In developed countries, most people living with HIV/AIDS are treated with costly brand single-tablet regimens. Given the economic impact, French guidelines recommend using generic antiretroviral therapy when possible to decrease antiretroviral therapy costs. We aimed to study HIV-infected patients’ acceptability to switch from a brand single-tablet regimens [abacavir/lamivudine/dolutegravir (Triumeq^®) or emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/rilpivirine (Eviplera^®)] to a treatment comprising of two pills: one is a fixed-dose generic combination of 2 Nucleoside Analogs and the second tablet is the third antiretroviral. This study was a prospective observational study in a French hospital. During their follow-up, patients on stable single-tablet regimens were made aware of the possible cost-saving. They were questioned about their willingness and barriers accepting the substitution. Participants chose between the two regimens, either to remain on single-tablet regimens or switch to the de-simplified regimen. Six months later, a second survey was given to the patient who chose to de-simplify and HIV viral load was controlled. The study included 98 patients: 60 receiving emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/rilpivirine (Eviplera^®) and 38 on abacavir/lamivudine/dolutegravir (Triumeq^®). Forty-five patients accepted the de-simplified treatment, 37 refused and 16 were undecided and followed the decision offered by their physician. The main reason for unwillingness to switch is the number of pills (77.3%). In multivariate model analysis, male patients (p = 0.001) who have taken antiretroviral therapy for over 20 years (p = 0.04) and who retrieve their treatment in their community hospital (p = 0.03) are more likely to accept the switch. Fifty-one patients accepted to replace their single-tablet regimens and six months later, the majority was satisfied; only four returned to single-tablet regimens because of suspected side effects. Half of the people living with HIV/AIDS in our cohort accepted to switch from brand single-tablet regimens to a two-tablet regimen containing generic drugs within a process that emphasizes health expenditure savings.

Desimplification of Single Tablet Antiretroviral (ART) Regimens-A Practical Cost-Savings Strategy?

INTRODUCTION

The use of lifelong antiretroviral therapy (ART) results in increased costs of care; the ability to finance and control sustained costs of ART needs to be discussed.

APPROACH

The Southern Alberta Clinic initiated a practical cost savings approach that switched select patients from a branded ART to a less expensive generic variation. Our approach surveyed physicians and patients on their acceptance of switching and then launched a program asking patients if they would switch to generic variations for cost control purposes.

RESULTS

Our early findings found >50% of patients approached agreed to switch. We found no evidence of increased risk of viral breakthrough, resistance, side effects, or displeasure with generic drugs. Measured cost savings in the first year were >$1.1 million with annual projected savings of between $4.3 million and $2.6 million (in 2017 Cdn$).

CONCLUSION

Our approach can provide an option for controlling costs of HIV care without compromising quality.

De-simplifying single-tablet antiretroviral treatments: uptake, risks and cost savings

OBJECTIVES

As more HIV-positive individuals receive antiretroviral therapy (ART), payers are seeking options for covering these increased and sustained drug costs. Strategic use of available generic antiretroviral (ARV) formulations may be feasible. De-simplifying a single-tablet co-formulation (STF) into two or more tablets using both brand and generic drugs has been proposed. We determine if voluntary de-simplification of one STF could be utilized as a cost-saving strategy. We report on the challenges, uptake, outcomes and cost savings of this initiative.

METHODS

Patients stable on the most commonly used STF (Triumeq^® ) were offered the option of remaining on Triumeq^® or switching to generic abacavir/lamivudine and Tivicay^® between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2018; those starting ART consisting of abacavir/lamivudine/doulutegravir in the same period were offered the option of starting Triumeq^® or generic abacavir/laminvudine and Tivicay^® . No incentives were provided. We examined the acceptance/decline rates, patient satisfaction, health care outcomes and annual cost savings.

RESULTS

Of 626 patients receiving Triumeq^® , 321 were approached; 177 (55.1%) agreed to de-simplify. Of patients initiating ART, 62.7% chose the generic co-formulation. Patients switching to or starting on the generic co-formulation were more likely to be male, > 45 years old, Caucasian, men who have sex with men (MSM) and more HIV-experienced, and to have more comorbidities (all P < 0.05). Preference for STF was cited for declining de-simplification. No concern about generic ARVs was expressed. The rate of viral load > 500 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL after baseline was 2.7% in switched patients compared with 7.0% in those declining to switch. No de novo resistance occurred. A saving of Cdn$1 319 686 was achieved in the first year.

CONCLUSIONS

Reliance on altruism, while respecting patient autonomy, achieved de-simplification in > 50% of patients approached, and generated immediate cost savings with no increased risk of adverse events, viral breakthrough or resistance.

Patient perspectives on de-simplifying their single-tablet co-formulated antiretroviral therapy for societal cost savings

OBJECTIVES

The incremental costs of expanding antiretroviral (ARV) drug treatment to all HIV-infected patients are substantial, so cost-saving initiatives are important. Our objectives were to determine the acceptability and financial impact of de-simplifying (i.e. switching) more expensive single-tablet formulations (STFs) to less expensive generic-based multi-tablet components. We determined physician and patient perceptions and acceptance of STF de-simplification within the context of a publicly funded ARV budget.

METHODS

Programme costs were calculated for patients on ARVs followed at the Southern Alberta Clinic, Canada during 2016 (Cdn$). We focused on patients receiving Triumeq® and determined the savings if patients de-simplified to eligible generic co-formulations. We surveyed all prescribing physicians and a convenience sample of patients taking Triumeq® to see if, for budgetary purposes, they felt that de-simplification would be acceptable.

RESULTS

Of 1780 patients receiving ARVs, 62% (n = 1038) were on STF; 58% (n = 607) of patients on STF were on Triumeq®. The total annual cost of ARVs was $26 222 760. The cost for Triumeq® was $8 292 600. If every patient on Triumeq® switched to generic abacavir/lamivudine and Tivicay® (dolutegravir), total costs would decrease by $4 325 040. All physicians (n = 13) felt that de-simplifying could be safely achieved. Forty-eight per cent of 221 patients surveyed were agreeable to de-simplifying for altruistic reasons, 27% said no, and 25% said maybe.

CONCLUSIONS

De-simplifying Triumeq® generates large cost savings. Additional savings could be achieved by de-simplifying other STFs. Both physicians and patients agreed that selective de-simplification was acceptable; however, it may not be acceptable to every patient. Monitoring the medical and cost impacts of de-simplification strategies seems warranted.

Antiretroviral pill count and clinical outcomes in treatment-naïve patients with HIV infection

OBJECTIVES

Treatment guidelines recommend single-tablet regimens for patients with HIV infection starting antiretroviral therapy. These regimens might be as effective and cost less if taken as separate drugs. We assessed whether the one pill once a day combination of efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir reduces the risk of disease progression compared with multiple-pill formulations of the same regimen.

METHODS

We selected treatment-naïve patients starting one-, two- or three-pill formulations of this regimen in data from the Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration. These patients were followed until an AIDS event or death or until they modified their regimen. We analysed these data using Cox regression models, then used our models to predict the potential consequences of exposing a future population to either a one-pill regimen or a three-pill regimen.

RESULTS

Among 11 739 treatment-naïve patients starting the regimen, there were 386 AIDS events and 87 deaths. Follow-up often ended when patients switched to the same regimen with fewer pills. After the first month, two pills rather than one was associated with an increase in the risk of AIDS or death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.91], but three pills rather than two did not appreciably add to that increase (HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.84-1.68). We estimate that 77 patients would need to be exposed to a one-pill regimen rather than a three-pill regimen for 1 year to avoid one additional AIDS event or death.

CONCLUSIONS

This particular single-tablet regimen is associated with a modest decrease in the risk of AIDS or death relative to multiple-pill formulations.