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

Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa

BACKGROUND

While dolutegravir has been added by WHO as a preferred second-line option for the treatment of HIV infection, boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based regimens are still needed as alternative second-line options. Identifying optimal bPI-based second-line combinations is essential, given associated high costs and funding constraints in low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of three alternative bPI-based second-line regimens in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal.

METHODS

We used data collected over 2010-2015 in the 2LADY trial/post-trial cohort. Patients with first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC LPV/r; arm A), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (arm B), or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (arm C). Costs (US dollars, 2016), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each country over 24 months of follow-up and extrapolated to 5 years using a simulated patient-level Markov model. We assessed uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, scenarios and prices threshold analysis.

RESULTS

In each country, over 24 months, arm A was significantly less costly than arms B and C (incremental costs ranging from US$410-$US721 and US$468-US$546 for B and C vs A, respectively) and offered similar health benefits (incremental QALY: - 0.138 to 0.023 and - 0.179 to 0.028, respectively). Over 5 years, arm A remained the least costly, health benefits not being significantly different between arms. Compared with arms B and C, in each study country, Arm A had a ≥ 95% probability of being cost-effective for a large range of cost-effectiveness thresholds, irrespective of the scenario considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Using TDF/FTC LPV/r as a bPI-based second-line regimen provided the best economic value in the three study countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00928187.

Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults with virological failure of a standard first-line ART regimen (SECOND-LINE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists about the best treatment for people with HIV-1 who have virological failure with first-line combination antiretroviral therapy of a non-nucleoside analogue (NNRTI) plus two nucleoside or nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTI). We compared a second-line regimen combining two new classes of drug with a WHO-recommended regimen.

METHODS

We did this 96-week, phase 3b/4, randomised, open-label non-inferiority trial at 37 sites worldwide. Adults with HIV-1 who had confirmed virological failure (plasma viral load >500 copies per mL) after 24 weeks or more of first-line treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NtRTIs (control group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with block randomisation (block size four). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma viral load less than 200 copies per mL at 48 weeks in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00931463.

FINDINGS

We enrolled 558 patients, of whom 541 (271 in the control group, 270 in the raltegravir group) were included in the primary analysis. At 48 weeks, 219 (81%) patients in the control group compared with 223 (83%) in the raltegravir group met the primary endpoint (difference 1·8%, 95% CI -4·7 to 8·3), fulfilling the criterion for non-inferiority. 993 adverse events occurred in 271 participants in the control group versus 895 in 270 participants in the raltegravir group, the most common being gastrointestinal.

INTERPRETATION

The raltegravir regimen was no less efficacious than the standard of care and was safe and well tolerated. This simple NtRTI-free treatment strategy might extend the successful public health approach to management of HIV by providing simple, easy to administer, effective, safe, and tolerable second-line combination antiretroviral therapy.

FUNDING

University of New South Wales, Merck, AbbVie, the Foundation for AIDS Research.