Cost-effectiveness of efavirenz vs rilpivirine in HIV patients initiating first-line combination antiretroviral therapy

Cost-Effectiveness of a Care Program for HIV/AIDS Patients Affiliated with a Health Insurer in Colombia, Comparing Three Health Care Providers Nationwide

BACKGROUND

In Colombia, HIV and AIDS constitute one of the major diseases of high cost to the health system, making necessary health risk management of patients with this disease through comprehensive health care programs with their respective evaluation of results.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of a care program for patients with HIV/AIDS affiliated to a health insurer in Colombia, comparing their results in three Health care provider (HCP).

METHODS

The study population corresponded to a cohort of patients older than 18 years with HIV/AIDS and affiliated to a health insurer in Colombia during 2011 and 2012. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a health care program for this population was performed on the basis of a Markov model, in which quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained were assessed. This analysis was conducted from the insurer perspective. The time horizon was life expectancy. A discount rate of 3% was applied.

RESULTS

Drugs accounted for 80.54% of care costs. The average annual cost of patients in health state 5 was 3 times higher than that of patients in state 1. HCP A compared with HCP B generated an additional 1.53 QALYs, with a rate of incremental cost-effectiveness of $2400 per QALY gained. HCP C showed a dominated behavior. The variables that most influence the uncertainty were the cost of HCP A in health state 5 (55.52%) and the cost of HCP B in state 3 (27.51%).

CONCLUSIONS

HCP A is a very cost-effective option considering a threshold of 1 time the per-capita gross domestic product.

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of HIV treatment: how to buy the most 'health' when resources are limited

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that evaluate optimal treatment strategies for persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA).

RECENT FINDINGS

Efforts to attain universal coverage of current treatment guidelines (e.g., initiation at CD4 cell count <350 cells/μl) are generally very costeffective. Expansion of access beyond current guidelines will additionally improve clinical outcomes and aversion of new HIV infections; however, cost-effectiveness is more uncertain. Increasing access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) offers greater health benefit than investing the same funds in intensive laboratory monitoring for those on ART, particularly in those settings in which universal coverage has not yet been attained. Recommended ART regimens (e.g., tenofovir) have favorable cost-effectiveness when compared with substitution of newer, more expensive agents (e.g., rilpivirine, darunavir) or substitution of older, cheaper alternatives that are more toxic (e.g., stavudine).

SUMMARY

There is increasing use of CEA to evaluate decisions regarding HIV treatment in order to buy the most 'health' with limited resources. Expansion of ART access provides substantial clinical and preventive benefit and offers favorable cost-effectiveness. Intensive laboratory monitoring may not be the highest priority in settings in which resources are constrained. Further work on the economic impact, clinical effectiveness, and feasibility of ART treatment for all (e.g., no CD4 cell initiation criteria) is needed.