Antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients: a proposal to assess the economic value of the single-tablet regimen

Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-retroviral Adherence Interventions for People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review of Decision Analytical Models

BACKGROUND

Although safe and effective anti-retrovirals (ARVs) are readily available, non-adherence to ARVs is highly prevalent among people living with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (PLWHA). Different adherence-improving interventions have been developed and examined through decision analytic model-based health technology assessments. This systematic review aimed to review and appraise the decision analytical economic models developed to assess ARV adherence-improvement interventions.

METHODS

The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022270039), and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Relevant studies were identified through searches in six generic and specialized bibliographic databases, i.e. PubMed, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, PsycINFO, Health Economic Evaluations Database, tufts CEA registry and EconLit, from their inception to 23 October 2022. The cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions is represented by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The quality of studies was assessed using the quality of the health economics studies (QHES) instrument. Data were narratively synthesized in the form of tables and texts. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a permutation matrix was used for quantitative data synthesis rather than a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, mostly conducted in North America (8/15 studies), were included in the review. The time horizon ranged from a year to a lifetime. Ten out of 15 studies used a micro-simulation, 4/15 studies employed Markov and 1/15 employed a dynamic model. The most commonly used interventions reported include technology based (5/15), nurse involved (2/15), directly observed therapy (2/15), case manager involved (1/15) and others that involved multi-component interventions (5/15). In 1/15 studies, interventions gained higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with cost savings. The interventions in 14/15 studies were more effective but at a higher cost, and the overall ICER was well below the acceptable threshold mentioned in each study, indicating the interventions could potentially be implemented after careful interpretation. The studies were graded as high quality (13/15) or fair quality (2/15), with some methodological inconsistencies reported.

CONCLUSION

Counselling and smartphone-based interventions are cost-effective, and they have the potential to reduce the chronic adherence problem significantly. The quality of decision models can be improved by addressing inconsistencies in model selection, data inputs incorporated into models and uncertainty assessment methods.

The transformation of HIV therapy: One pill once a day

A co-formulated, one pill once a day antiretroviral regimen (single-tablet regimen), containing efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxyl fumarate ( Atripla), revolutionized the antiretroviral therapy landscape. Single-tablet regimens provide not only dosing convenience but help optimize adherence and persistence with antiretroviral therapy to achieve durably suppressed viremia with both individual and societal benefits. Given the many excellent options available now, single-tablet regimens are the preferred choice for initiating antiretroviral therapy in almost all patients with rare exceptions for drug interactions and pregnancy, and for simplification of more complex antiretroviral therapy to a single-tablet regimen. In this special commemorative article, we celebrate this astounding advancement in antiretroviral therapy, championed by John C. Martin while CEO of Gilead Sciences, and its transformative impact on HIV care nationally and globally.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Validation Protocol of Vitamin D Supplementation in Patients with HIV-Infection

Hypovitaminosis D and secondary hyperparathyroidism are frequent among HIV-infected patients. As there are no data about the best supplementation therapy both in treatment and in maintenance, we conducted an observational study of 300 HIV-infected patients for whom vitamin D and parathormone (PTH) had been measured in order to validate a protocol of vitamin D supplementation in patients with HIV-infection. Patients with vitamin D deficiency (defined as 25(OH)D < 10 ng/mL), insufficiency (defined as 25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL), or hyperparathyroidism (PTH > 65 pg/mL) were supplemented with cholecalciferol 16.000IU (0.266 mg) weekly (if deficiency) or fortnightly (if insufficiency or high PTH levels). Rates of normalization of 25(OH)D (levels above 20 ng/mL) and PTH levels (<65 pg/mL) were analyzed. Multivariate analysis of factors related to normalization was carried out. With a median follow-up of 2 years, 82.1% of patients with deficiency and 83.9% of cases with insufficiency reached levels above 20 ng/mL. However, only 67.2% of individuals with hyperparathyroidism at baseline reached target levels (<65 pg/mL). Independent factors for not achieving PTH objective were tenofovir (TDF) and protease inhibitors use. In HIV-infected patients with hypovitaminosis, the protocol of cholecalciferol supplementation normalized vitamin D levels regardless of antiretroviral regimen in a high proportion of patients but it was less effective to correct hyperparathyroidism.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- Versus Generic Multiple-Tablet Regimens for Treatment of HIV-1 Infection in the United States

Background

The possibility of incorporating generics into combination antiretroviral therapy and breaking apart once-daily single-tablet regimens (STRs), may result in less efficacious medications and/or more complex regimens with the expectation of marked monetary savings. A modeling approach that assesses the merits of such policies in terms of lifelong costs and health outcomes using adherence and effectiveness data from real-world U.S. settings.

Methods

A comprehensive computer-based microsimulation model was developed to assess the lifetime health (life expectancy and quality adjusted life-years—QALYs) and economic outcomes in HIV-1 infected patients initiating STRs compared with multiple-table regimens including generic medications where possible (gMTRs). The STRs considered included tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and efavirenz or rilpivirine or elvitegravir/cobicistat. gMTRs substitutions included each counterpart to STRs, including generic lamivudine for emtricitabine and generic versus branded efavirenz.

Results

Life expectancy is estimated to be 1.301 years higher (discounted 0.619 QALY gain) in HIV-1 patients initiating a single-tablet regimen in comparison to a generic-based multiple-table regimen. STRs were associated with an average increment of $26,547.43 per patient in medication and $1,824.09 in other medical costs due to longer survival which were partially offset by higher inpatients costs ($12,035.61) with gMTRs treatment. Overall, STRs presented incremental lifetime costs of $16,335.91 compared with gMTRs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,383.82 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

STRs continue to represent good value for money under contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds despite substantial price reductions of generic medications in the U. S.

Single Tablet Regimen Usage and Efficacy in the Treatment of HIV Infection in Australia

Single tablet regimens (STRs) for HIV infection improve patient satisfaction, quality of life, medication adherence, and virological suppression compared to multitablet regimens (MTRs). This is the first study assessing STR uptake and durability in Australia. This retrospective audit of all patients receiving an STR (n = 299) at a large Sydney HIV clinic (January 2012–December 2013) assessed patient demographics, treatment prior to STR, HIV RNA load and CD4 during MTR and STR dosing, and reasons for STR switch. 206 patients switched from previous antiretroviral treatment to an STR, of which 88% switched from an MTR. Reasons for switching included desire to simplify treatment (57%), reduced side effects or toxicity (18%), and cost-saving for the patient. There was no switching for virological failure. Compared to when on an MTR, patients switching to an STR had significantly lower HIV RNA counts (p < 0.001) and significantly higher CD4 counts (p < 0.001). The discontinuation rate from STR was very low and all patients who switched to an STR maintained virological suppression throughout the study duration, although the study is limited by the absence of a control group.

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.

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.

Perceived stigma, medical social support and quality of life among people living with HIV/AIDS in Hunan, China

PURPOSE

The present study aimed at examining the relationships among perceived stigma, social support, and quality of life (QOL) in people living with HIV (PLWH).

METHODS

We recruited 190 participants meeting the inclusion criteria from two HIV clinics in Hunan, China. HIV-related Stigma Scale, the Chinese Version of the Medical Outcomes Study - Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS-C), and the Medical Outcomes Study-HIV (MOS-HIV) were used to measure the perceived stigma, social support and QOL in PLWH.

RESULTS

The mean scores of the perceived stigma, social support, and QOL were 104.32, 53.63, and 61.97 respectively, which were in moderate range. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis showed (R(2)=.49, p<.01) a low score of internalized stigma and family stigma, a high score of tangible support for non-drug use and antiretroviral treatment, and high CD4 count predicted better QOL.

CONCLUSION

Perceived stigma and social support are correlated with the QOL in PLWH. Interventions designed to decrease perceived stigma and strengthen social support from family are necessary to improve the QOL in PLWH.

Economic and outcomes consequences of TachoSil®: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

TachoSil(®) is a medicated sponge coated with human fibrinogen and human thrombin. It is indicated as a support treatment in adult surgery to improve hemostasis, promote tissue sealing, and support sutures when standard surgical techniques are insufficient. This review systematically analyses the international scientific literature relating to the use of TachoSil in hemostasis and as a surgical sealant, from the point of view of its economic impact.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of the PubMed literature up to November 2013. Based on the selection criteria, papers were grouped according to the following outcomes: reduction of time to hemostasis; decrease in length of hospital stay; and decrease in postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-four scientific papers were screened, 13 (54%) of which were randomized controlled trials and included a total of 2,116 patients, 1,055 of whom were treated with TachoSil. In the clinical studies carried out in patients undergoing hepatic, cardiac, or renal surgery, the time to hemostasis obtained with TachoSil was lower (1-4 minutes) than the time measured with other techniques and hemostatic drugs, with statistically significant differences. Moreover, in 13 of 15 studies, TachoSil showed a statistically significant reduction in postoperative complications in comparison with the standard surgical procedure. The range of the observed decrease in the length of hospital stay for TachoSil patients was 2.01-3.58 days versus standard techniques, with a statistically significant difference in favor of TachoSil in eight of 15 studies.

CONCLUSION

This analysis shows that TachoSil has a role as a supportive treatment in surgery to improve hemostasis and promote tissue sealing when standard techniques are insufficient, with a consequent decrease in postoperative complications and hospital costs.

The Effect on Treatment Adherence of Administering Drugs as Fixed-Dose Combinations versus as Separate Pills: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Administering drugs as fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) versus the same active drugs administered as separate pills is assumed to enhance treatment adherence. We synthesized evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of FDCs versus separate pills on adherence. We searched PubMed for RCTs comparing a FDC with the same active drugs administered as separate pills, including a quantitative estimate of treatment adherence, without restriction to medical condition. The odds ratio (OR) of optimal adherence with FDCs versus separate pills was used as common effect size and aggregated into a pooled effect estimate using a random effect model with inverse variance weights. Out of 1258 articles screened, only six studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Across medical conditions, administering drugs as FDC significantly increased the likelihood of optimal adherence (OR 1.33 (95% CI, 1.03-1.71)). Within subgroups of specific medical conditions, the favourable effect of FDCs on adherence was of borderline statistical significance for HIV infection only (OR 1.46 (95% CI, 1.00-2.13)). We observed a remarkable paucity of RCTs comparing the effect on adherence of administering drugs as FDC versus as separate pills. Administering drugs as FDC improved medication adherence. However, this conclusion is based on a limited number of RCTs only.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of rFSH + rLH for the treatment of anovulation in hypogonadotropic hypogonadal women

Background

Hypogonadotropic hypogonadal women are characterized by ovarian functionality deficiency, caused by low concentrations of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH). To recover reproduction functionality, recommended therapies for ovarian induction involve injections of FSH and LH medications.

Objective

Since important differences exist between recombinant and urinary gonadotropin therapies in terms of efficacy and cost, the objective of this study was to develop a cost-effectiveness model to compare recombinant FSH (rFSH) + recombinant LH (rLH) and highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-HMG).

Methods

A Markov model was developed, considering three cycles of therapy; probability of pregnancy and miscarriage were considered, and the efficacy was evaluated in terms of pregnancy occurrence. The perspective of the model was that of the Italian Health Service, so only direct cost (drugs, specialist visits, patient examinations, and hospitalizations) were included.

Results

rFSH + rLH is associated with a higher total cost (€3,453.50) and higher efficacy (0.87) compared with HP-HMG (€2,719.70 and 0.50). rFSH + rLH generated an incremental cost effectiveness ratio equal to €2,007.30 compared to HP-HMG; the average cost per pregnancy is estimated to be €3,990.00 for recombinant strategy and €5,439.80 for urinary strategy. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis were consistent with the abovementioned findings.

Conclusion

Despite the higher acquisition cost in comparison to HP-HMG, rFSH + rLH resulted in a higher pregnancy rate, which makes it the recommended choice when considering cost-effectiveness of LH in supporting FSH-induced follicular gonadotropins in hypogonadotropic hypogonadal women.

Single-Tablet Regimens in HIV Therapy

Combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) has evolved considerably over the past decades leading to a better control of human immunodeficiency virus replication. Recently, regimens have evolved so as to simplify dosing frequency and reduce pill burden to improve adherence. Several national and international guidelines suggest antiretroviral (ARV) regimen simplification as a method of improving adherence. Decreased cART adherence has been associated with both patient-related factors and regimen-related factors. Adherence rates are statistically higher when simpler, once-daily (OD) regimens are combined with smaller daily regimen pill burdens. The avoidance of selective non-adherence, where a patient takes part of a regimen but not the full regimen, is a further potential benefit offered by single-tablet regimens (STRs). Simplification of cART has been associated with a better quality of life (QoL). Although tempered by other factors, better adherence, higher QoL and patients' preferences are all key points which might combine to assure long-lasting efficacy and durability of cART. All studies underlined the favorable tolerability profile of newer STRs. Three STRs are currently available. Tenofovir (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC)/efavirenz (EFV) was the first OD complete ARV regimen available as a STR. TDF plus FTC/rilpivirine is a second-generation STR. The most recently approved STR, TDF plus FTC/cobicistat/elvitegravir, is the first non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based STR. All of them have shown excellent efficacy; safety and tolerability have been improved by more recent formulations. Several other STRs are anticipated both combining completely different drugs, abacavir (ABC) plus lamivudine (3TC)/dolutegravir, utilizing innovative formulations of older drugs, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or taking advance of bioequivalent drugs, lamivudine (3TC) plus ABC/EFV. The future challenge would be to develop completely alternative STRs (including for example protease inhibitors or new molecules) to extend the advantages of simplicity to heavily pre-treated individuals.

Single-tablet regimens in HIV: does it really make a difference?

OBJECTIVES

Review of the available data on the currently available single-tablet regimens (STRs), from the analysis of efficacy and safety to the key points of value in terms of adherence, quality of life and pharmacoeconomic evaluation.

METHODS

For this narrative review, literature searches have been performed in PubMed, IndexRevMed and Cochrane, using the search terms HIV, single-tablet, one-pill, single dose, fixed-dose, and STR. These have been reviewed and complemented with the most recent publications of interest.

RESULTS

Fixed-dose combinations are a significant advance in antiretroviral treatment simplification, contributing to an increase in compliance with complex chronic therapies, thus improving patients' quality of life. Reducing the number of pills and daily doses is associated with higher adherence and better quality of life. As a fixed-dose combination tablet given once daily, EFV/FTC/TDF was the first available STR combining efficacy, tolerability and convenience, with the simplest dosing schedule and smallest numbers of pills of any ART combination therapy. The RPV/FTC/TDF is a next-generation NNRTI-based STR, a once daily complete ART regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Recently the combination of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was also approved by the European Commission, and is the first integrase inhibitor-based STR. Receiving antiretroviral therapy as once daily STR is associated with both clinical and economic benefits, which confirms previous research.

CONCLUSIONS

The associated benefits of STRs provide a valid strategy for the treatment of HIV-infected patients.

Cost analysis of initial highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens for managing human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients according to clinical practice in a hospital setting

Objective

In the study reported here, single-tablet regimen (STR) versus (vs) multi-tablet regimen (MTR) strategies were evaluated through a cost analysis in a large cohort of patients starting their first highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 1-naïve patients, followed at the San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy, starting their first-line regimen from June 2008 to April 2012 were included in the analysis.

Methods

The most frequently used first-line HAART regimens (>10%) were grouped into two classes: 1) STR of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) + emtricitabine (FTC) + efavirenz (EFV) and 2) MTR including TDF + FTC + EFV, TDF + FTC + atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r), TDF + FTC + darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r), and TDF + FTC + lopinavir/ritoavir (LPV/r). Data were analyzed from the point of view of the Lombardy Regional Health Service. HAART, hospitalizations, visits, medical examinations, and other concomitant non-HAART drug costs were evaluated and price variations included. Descriptive statistics were calculated for baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics; associations between categorical variables and type of antiretroviral strategy (STR vs MTR) were examined using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. At multivariate analysis, the generalized linear model was used to identify the predictive factors of the overall costs of the first-line HAART regimens.

Results

A total of 474 naïve patients (90% male, mean age 42.2 years, mean baseline HIV-RNA 4.50 log 10 copies/mL, and cluster of differentiation 4 [CD4+] count of 310 cells/μL, with a mean follow-up of 28 months) were included. Patients starting an STR treatment were less frequently antibody-hepatitis C virus positive (4% vs 11%, P=0.040), and had higher mean CD4+ values (351 vs 297 cells/μL, P=0.004) than MTR patients. The mean annual cost per patient in the STR group was €9,213.00 (range: €6,574.71–€33,570.00) and €14,277.00 (range: €5,908.89–€82,310.30) among MTR patients. At multivariate analysis, after adjustment for age, sex, antibody-hepatitis C virus status, HIV risk factors, baseline CD4+, and HIV-RNA, the cost analysis was significantly lower among patients starting an STR treatment than those starting an MTR (adjusted mean: €12,096.00 vs €16,106.00, P=0.0001).

Conclusion

STR was associated with a lower annual cost per patient than MTR, thus can be considered a cost-saving strategy in the treatment of HIV patients. This analysis is an important tool for policy makers and health care professionals to make short- and long-term cost projections and thus assess the impact of these on available budgets.

Triple-combination rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir (Complera™/Eviplera™) in the treatment of HIV infection

The combination rilpivirine (RPV)/emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir (TDF) is a once-daily, single-tablet regimen (STR) containing one nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor associated with two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. It is approved by regulatory agencies (eg, US Food and Drug Association, European Medicines Agency) in all countries in which it is manufactured, except Switzerland, as first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) for the treatment of naïve patients with HIV infection and a viral load HIV-RNA level of ≤100,000 copies/mL. Two large trials (ECHO and THRIVE) comparing RPV with efavirenz, along with different background regimens, led to approval of the drug, while a more recent trial (STaR) explored the use of STR. RPV showed noninferiority to efavirenz in all the studies, including superiority as an STR in patients with HIV-RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL in the STaR study. A positive CD4 cell response was observed in all the studies, both in the RPV and efavirenz groups. The incidence of virologic failures was higher for RPV, but was mostly referred to patients with HIV-RNA >100,000 copies/mL. There were fewer adverse events (AEs) with the RPV-based regimens versus efavirenz-based regimens, with a lower discontinuation rate because of AEs, especially psychiatric-neurological AEs, and a significantly lower rate of blood-lipid abnormalities. In the SPIRIT study (a switch study), significantly greater improvements from baseline in serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and trygliceride were demonstrated in patients switching to RPV/FTC/TDF from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r)-based regimen, than in those who continued treatment with a PI/r regimen. RPV's better tolerability, associated with its once-daily STR formulation, is key to improving patients' adherence and quality of life, which are among the most important factors affecting the therapeutic efficacy of an antiretroviral regimen. In summary, RPV/FTC/TDF STR is a valuable treatment option for the majority of antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected patients. Furthermore, the use of this STR in the therapeutic switch, like in the SPIRIT study, can result in another valuable option by which to reduce AEs and improve patients' quality of life.