Prioritizing HIV comparative effectiveness trials based on value of information: generic versus brand-name ART in the US.

BACKGROUND: Value of Information (VOI) analysis examines whether to acquire information before making a decision. We introduced VOI to the HIV audience, using the example of generic antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the US. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a mathematical model and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to generate probability distributions of survival (in quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) and cost for three potential first-line ART regimens: three-pill generic, two-pill generic, and single-pill branded. These served as input for a comparison of two hypothetical two-arm trials: three-pill generic versus single-pill branded; and two-pill generic versus single-pill branded. We modeled pre-trial uncertainty by defining probability distributions around key inputs, including 24-week HIV-RNA suppression and subsequent ART failure. We assumed that, without a trial, patients received the single-pill branded strategy. Post-trial, we assumed that patients received the most cost-effective strategy. For both trials, we quantified the probability of changing to a generic-based regimen upon trial completion and the expected VOI in terms of improved health outcomes and costs. Assuming a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000/QALY, the three-pill trial led to more treatment changes (84%) than the two-pill trial (78%). Estimated VOI was $48 000 (three-pill trial) and $35 700 (two-pill trial) per future patient initiating ART. CONCLUSIONS: A three-pill trial of generic ART is more likely to lead to post-trial treatment changes and to provide more value than a two-pill trial if policy decisions are based on cost-effectiveness. Value of Information analysis can identify trials likely to confer the greatest impact and value for HIV care.

Cost-effectiveness of CYP2B6 genotyping to optimize efavirenz dosing in HIV clinical practice.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of CYP2B6 genotyping to guide efavirenz dosing for initial HIV therapy in the USA. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) microsimulation model to project quality-adjusted life expectancy and lifetime costs (2014 US dollars) for efavirenz-based HIV therapy with or without CYP2B6 genotyping. We assumed that with genotyping 60% of patients would be eligible to receive lower doses. RESULTS: Current care without CYP2B6 genotyping has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$100,000/QALY compared with genotype-guided dosing, even if lower dosing reduces efficacy. When we assumed generic efavirenz availability, conclusions were similar unless lower dosing reduces efficacy by 6% or more. CONCLUSION: CYP2B6 genotyping can inform efavirenz dosing and decrease HIV therapy cost.