Short communication: lamivudine plus a boosted-protease inhibitor as simplification strategy in HIV-infected patients: proof of concept

Budget impact analysis of antiretroviral less drug regimen simplification in HIV-positive patients on the Italian National Health Service

Background

Deintensification and less drug regimen (LDR) antiretroviral therapy (ART) strategies have proved to be effective in terms of maintaining viral suppression in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients, increasing tolerability, and reducing toxicity of antiretroviral drugs administered to patients. However, the economic impact of these strategies have not been widely investigated. The aim of the study is to evaluate the economic impact that ART LDR could have on the Italian National Health Service (INHS) budget.

Methods

A budget impact model was structured to assess the potential savings for the INHS by the use of ART LDR for HIV-positive patients with a 3 year perspective. Data concerning ART cost, patient distribution within different ARTs, and probabilities for patients to change ART on a yearly basis were collected within four Italian infectious diseases departments, providing ART to 13.7% of the total number of patients receiving ART in Italy.

Results

The LDR investigated (protease inhibitor-based dual and monotherapies) led to savings for the hospitals involved when compared to the “do nothing” scenario on a 3 year basis, between 6.7% (23.11 million €) and 12.8% (44.32 million €) of the total ART expenditures. The mean yearly cost per patient is reduced from 9,875 € in the do nothing scenario to a range between 9,218 € and 8,615 €. The use of these strategies within the four departments involved would have led to a reduction of ART expenditures for the INHS of between 1.1% and 2.1% in 3 years.

Conclusion

ART LDR simplification would have a significant impact in the reduction of ART-related costs within the hospitals involved in the study. These strategies could therefore be addressed as a sustainable answer to the public financing reduction observed within the INHS in the last year, allowing therapies to be dispensed without affecting the quality of the services provided.

Moving away from Ritonavir, Abacavir, Tenofovir, and Efavirenz (RATE)--agents that concern prescribers and patients: a feasibility study and call for a trial

Objectives

Regimens sparing RATE (ritonavir, abacavir, tenofovir, efavirienz) agents might have better long-term safety. We conducted a feasibility exercise to assess the potential for a randomised trial evaluating RATE-sparing regimens.

Design

Observational.

Methods

We first calculated RATE-sparing options available to an average patient receiving RATE agents. We reviewed treatment history and all resistance assays from patients attending the St. Vincent’s Hospital (Sydney) clinic and receiving ≥2 RATE agents (n = 120). A viable RATE-sparing regimen with 2 or 3 fully-active agents was constructed from the following six ‘safer’ agents: rilpivirine or etravirine; atazanavir; raltegravir; maraviroc; and lamivudine. Activity for each drug was predicted as 1 (full-activity), 0.5 or 0 (no activity) using the Stanford mutation database. The utility of maraviroc was calculated assuming both maraviroc activity and inactivity where unknown. The analysis was restricted to regimens for which supporting evidence was identified in the literature or conference proceedings. Finally, we calculated the proportion of patients in the nationally representative Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD) cohort receiving ≥2 RATE agents (n = 1473) to measure the potential population-level uptake of RATE-sparing agents.

Results

Assuming full maraviroc activity, 117(97.5%) and 107(89.2%) individuals had at least one option with 2 or 3 active RATE-sparing agents, respectively. Assuming no maraviroc activity this decreased to 113(94.2%) and 104(86.7%), respectively. In AHOD, 837(56.8%) patients were receiving ≥2 RATE agents.

Conclusion

Feasible treatment switch options sparing RATE agents exist for the majority of patients. Understanding the pros and cons of switching stable patients onto new RATE-sparing regimens requires evidence derived from randomised controlled trials.