Is increased screening and early antiretroviral treatment for HIV-1 worth the investment? An analysis of the public health and economic impact of improvement in the UK

OBJECTIVES

Early treatment of HIV-1 infection at all CD4 levels has demonstrated clinical and public health benefits. This analysis examined the costs, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of increased HIV-1 screening and early treatment initiation in the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model followed theoretical cohorts of men who have sex with men (MSM), heterosexuals, and people who inject drugs (PWID) with initially undiagnosed HIV-1 infection over their remaining lifetimes. The analysis examined increased HIV-1 screening (resulting in 10-50% improvements in diagnosis rates) versus current screening in sexual health services (SHS) and other settings, with all individuals initiating treatment within 3 months of diagnosis. Health status was modelled by viral load and CD4 cell count as individuals progressed to diagnosis and treatment. Individuals accrued quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incurred costs for screening and HIV-related clinical management, and were at risk of transmitting HIV-1 infection to their partners. Input parameter data were taken primarily from UK-specific published sources. All outcomes were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

The model estimated that increased screening and early treatment resulted in fewer onward HIV transmissions, more QALYs, and higher total costs. For SHS, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for heterosexuals (~£22 000/QALY gained) were within typical UK willingness-to-pay thresholds and were well below these thresholds for MSM (~£9500/QALY gained) and PWID (~£6500/QALY gained). Sensitivity analysis showed that model results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased HIV-1 screening and early treatment initiation may be a cost-effective strategy to reduce HIV transmission and improve health for MSM, heterosexuals, and PWID in the UK.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tenofovir/emtricitabine and abacavir/lamivudine in combination with efavirenz or atazanavir/ritonavir for treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the UK, based on the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5202 clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the four regimens studied in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) 5202 clinical trial, tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) in combination with efavirenz (EFV) or atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r), for treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model with six health states based on CD4 cell count ranges was developed to predict long-term costs and health outcomes for individuals on first-line therapy. Head-to-head efficacy data comparing TDF/FTC + EFV, TDF/FTC + ATV/r, ABC/3TC + EFV, and ABC/3TC + ATV/r were obtained from ACTG 5202 for up to 192 weeks. Antiretroviral drug costs were based on current list prices. Other medical costs (2013 UK pounds sterling), utility values, and mortality rates were obtained from published sources. Base-case, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses (by baseline viral load) were conducted.

RESULTS

Individuals using TDF/FTC-based regimens were predicted to remain on first-line therapy longer and accrue more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than individuals using ABC/3TC-based regimens. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained, TDF/FTC-based regimens were predicted to be cost-effective compared with ABC/3TC-based regimens, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £23 355 for TDF/FTC + EFV vs. ABC/3TC + EFV and £23 785 for TDF/FTC + ATV/r vs. ABC/3TC + ATV/r. Results were generally robust in subgroup, sensitivity, and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of the regimens studied in ACTG 5202 for treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the UK, TDF/FTC-based regimens yielded more favourable health outcomes and were generally predicted to be cost-effective compared with ABC/3TC-based regimens. These results confirm that TDF/FTC-based regimens are not only clinically effective but also cost-effective.