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

Resource Utilization and Caring Cost of People Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PLHIV) in Saudi Arabia: A Tertiary Care University Hospital Experience

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is associated with a significant burden of disease, including medical and non-medical costs. Therefore, it is considered to be a priority for all health authorities. The aim of this study is to determine healthcare and treatment costs of caring for PLHIV at one of the tertiary care university hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This was a micro-costing, retrospective, observational study from a tertiary care university hospital and included all confirmed HIV-infected patients who visited infectious disease clinics in the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018. A total of 42 PLHIV were included in this study. The mean age of the study participants was 38.76 ± 11.47 years with a mean disease duration of 5.27 ± 4.81 years. The majority of patients were male (85.7%) and Saudi (88.1%). More than half of included patients (59.5%) had a CD4 count of more than 500. During the study period, 26 patients (61.9%) were initiated on a single-tablet regimen. Overall, the main cost-driver was antiretroviral medications, which cumulatively represented more than 64% of the total cost. Patients who developed opportunistic infections had a statistically significant (p = 0.033) higher financial impact, both as a total and on a patient level, than those presented without opportunistic infections. On a patient level, the mean and median costs were higher and statistically significant for those with co-morbidities than those without co-morbidities (p = 0.002). The majority of the economic burden of PLHIV is attributable to antiretroviral therapy use. The healthcare costs of PLHIV can vary greatly, depending on the presenting illness, clinical stage, developed opportunistic infection, co-morbidity, and pharmacological therapy.

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.

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.

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.