Budget impact of upadacitinib in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Argentina. / Impacto presupuestario de upadacitinib en pacientes con artritis reumatoide moderada a severa en Argentina.

OBJECTIVES.: To analyze the budget impact of upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg + methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD-IR) from the perspective of social security and the private health sector in Argentina. MATERIALS AND METHODS.: A budget impact analysis model was developed for a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 adults with health insurance coverage who were diagnosed with RA over a 5-year time horizon. The model parameters were obtained through literature review and validated by local experts. The costs are expressed in 2024 US dollars (USD). RESULTS.: The introduction of UPA 15 mg + MTX for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA and cDMARD-IR resulted in minimal increase, with a five-year total cumulative incremental cost of USD 1,855 for social security and USD 1,812 for the private health sector, representing 2% of the total budget. The acquisition cost of UPA was the most influential variable in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS.: The introduction of UPA 15 mg + MTX for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA and cDMARD-IR can provide an effective treatment option with a minimal increase in costs for the healthcare system in Argentina, which is especially important in developing countries where health system budgets are more limited. Providing evidence-based estimates is a valuable tool for informing healthcare policies and can help policymakers make informed decisions about the allocation of healthcare resources to improve patient outcomes while also managing costs.Motivation for the study. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease that hasn't cure, so it's important to know the budget impact of treatment with upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg + methotrexate (MTX) in patients with moderate to severe RA who didn't respond well to conventional antirheumatic drugs. Main findings. UPA + MTX would entail a minimal increase in costs for the healthcare system in Argentina, potentially making this effective treatment option more accessible to patients with RA. Access to this treatment can improve the outcome of patients with RA. Public health implications. In resource-constrained settings such as Argentina, providing evidence-based cost estimates can help healthcare managers allocate resources efficiently while improving patient outcomes. This study provides evidence to inform healthcare policies and decisions regarding the inclusion of UPA + MTX in treatment guidelines or formularies for RA management.

Health care resource utilization and costs for treatment-experienced people with HIV switching or restarting antiretroviral regimens since 2018.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with treatment-experienced people with HIV (PWH) switching treatment regimens. OBJECTIVE: To describe HCRU and cost during lines of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for treatment-experienced PWH switching to or restarting guideline-recommended, integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based multitablet regimens and single-tablet regimens. METHODS: This retrospective claims study used data from Optum Research Database (January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020) to identify lines of therapy (LOTs) for treatment-experienced adults who switched to or restarted INSTI-based regimens between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. The first LOT during the study period was included in the analysis. We examined all-cause HCRU and costs and HIV-related HCRU and combined costs to the health plan and direct patient costs by site of service and compared between INSTI-based regimens: bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) (single tablet) vs dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) (single tablet), dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (DTG+FTC/TAF) (multitablet), and dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DTG+FTC/TDF) (multitablet). Analysis of HCRU by site of service was conducted following inverse probability treatment weighting. Multivariable regression was conducted using a generalized linear model with stepwise covariate selection to estimate HIV-related medical costs and control for remaining differences after inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: 4,251 PWH were identified: B/F/TAF (n = 2,727; 64.2%), DTG/ABC/3TC (n = 898; 21.1%), DTG+FTC/TAF (n = 539; 12.7%), and DTG+FTC/TDF (n = 87; 2.1%). PWH treated with DTG+FTC/TAF had a significantly higher mean of all-cause ambulatory visits than PWH treated with B/F/TAF (1.8 vs 1.6, P < 0.001). A significantly smaller proportion of PWH treated with DTG/ABC/3TC had an all-cause ambulatory visit vs PWH treated with B/F/TAF (90.6% vs 93.9%, P < 0.001). All-cause total costs were not significantly different between regimens. Mean (SD) medical HIV-related costs per month during the LOT were not significantly different between B/F/TAF $699 (3,602), DTG/ABC/3TC $770 (3,469), DTG+FTC/TAF $817 (3,128), and DTG+FTC/TDF $3,570 (17,691). After further controlling for unbalanced measures, HIV-related medical costs during the LOT were higher (20%) but did not reach statistical significance for DTG/ABC/3TC (cost ratio = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.851-1.694; P = 0.299), 49% higher for DTG+FTC/TAF (cost ratio = 1.489, 95% CI = 1.018-2.179; P = 0.040), and almost 11 times greater for DTG+FTC/TDF (cost ratio = 10.759, 95% CI = 2.182-53.048; P = 0.004) compared with B/F/TAF. CONCLUSIONS: HIV-related medical costs during the LOT were lowest for PWH treated with INSTI-based single-tablet regimens. Simplifying treatment regimens may help PWH maintain lower health care costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dolutegravir Compared With Efavirenz for Prevention of Perinatal Transmission in Women Presenting With HIV in Late Pregnancy in Uganda.

OBJECTIVES: Dolutegravir (DTG) has proved to be more efficacious, tolerable, and safer than efavirenz (EFV) among mothers living with HIV and their infants in Uganda. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the DTG-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) compared with the standard of care for preventing perinatal transmissions among pregnant women initiating ART in late pregnancy in Uganda. METHODS: We used data from a randomized open-label trial (DolPHIN-2) and a 2-part cost-effectiveness model composed of a short-term decision tree to estimate the perinatal transmission rate and costs and an individual-based 3-state Markov model (HIV, advanced HIV, dead) to estimate the long-term costs and health outcomes from the Ugandan payer perspective using a lifetime horizon and a 1-year Markov cycle. The main outcomes were the mean annual costs in US dollars ($), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Both the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effect of parameter uncertainties on the ultimate results and the model's robustness. RESULTS: Compared with the EFV-based ART, the DTG-based ART was associated with fewer mean annual costs ($43.58 vs $68.44) and DALYs (0.33 vs 0.56), leading to cost savings of $110 per DALY averted. In the incremental analysis, the DTG-based ART dominated the EFV-based ART; that is, it was less costly and more effective. These results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The DTG-based ART is a highly cost-effective strategy compared with the EFV-based ART among women initiating treatment in the third trimester of pregnancy in a low-income setting.

Costs and acceptability of simplified monitoring in HIV-suppressed patients switching to dual therapy: the SIMPL'HIV open-label, factorial randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and laboratory monitoring of patients on antiretroviral therapy is an integral part of HIV care and determines whether treatment needs enhanced adherence or modification of the drug regimen. However, different monitoring and treatment strategies carry different costs and health consequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SIMPL'HIV study was a randomised trial that assessed the non-inferiority of dual maintenance therapy. The co-primary outcome was a comparison of costs over 48 weeks of dual therapy with standard antiretroviral therapy and the costs associated with a simplified HIV care approach (patient-centred monitoring [PCM]) versus standard, tri-monthly routine monitoring. Costs included outpatient medical consultations (HIV/non-HIV consultations), non-medical consultations, antiretroviral therapy, laboratory tests and hospitalisation costs. PCM participants had restricted immunological and blood safety monitoring at weeks 0 and 48, and they were offered the choice to complete their remaining study visits via a telephone call, have medications delivered to a specified address, and to have blood tests performed at a location of their choice. We analysed the costs of both strategies using invoices for medical consultations issued by the hospital where the patient was followed, as well as those obtained from health insurance companies. Secondary outcomes included differences between monitoring arms for renal function, lipids and glucose values, and weight over 48 weeks. Patient satisfaction with treatment and monitoring was also assessed using visual analogue scales. RESULTS: Of 93 participants randomised to dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and 94 individuals to combination antiretroviral therapy (median nadir CD4 count, 246 cells/mm3; median age, 48 years; female, 17%),patient-centred monitoring generated no substantial reductions or increases in total costs (US$ -421 per year [95% CI -2292 to 1451]; p = 0.658). However, dual therapy was significantly less expensive (US$ -2620.4 [95% CI -2864.3 to -2331.4]) compared to standard triple-drug antiretroviral therapy costs. Approximately 50% of participants selected one monitoring option, one-third chose two, and a few opted for three. The preferred option was telephone calls, followed by drug delivery. The number of additional visits outside the study schedule did not differ by type of monitoring. Patient satisfaction related to treatment and monitoring was high at baseline, with no significant increase at week 48. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centred monitoring did not reduce costs compared to standard monitoring in individuals switching to dual therapy or those continuing combined antiretroviral therapy. In this representative sample of patients with suppressed HIV, antiretroviral therapy was the primary factor driving costs, which may be reduced by using generic drugs to mitigate the high cost of lifelong HIV treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03160105.

Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus). Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib). Data sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review. Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources. Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost. Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations. Future work and limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Atopic dermatitis is one of the most common skin conditions in children but can also develop in adulthood. People with atopic dermatitis have dry, red (inflamed) skin that is also extremely itchy (pruritus). There is no cure for atopic dermatitis. Therapy starts with topical treatments that are applied to the skin, such as emollients. Severe forms of atopic dermatitis are often treated with systemic treatments, which are drugs that are provided as tablets or an injection. Ciclosporin A is often the first systemic therapy given. If atopic dermatitis does not get better with ciclosporin A, options available in the National Health Service are dupilumab and baricitinib. New therapies that have been evaluated in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis but have not been assessed for use in the National Health Service are abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib. The aim of this project is to review the medical benefits, risks and value for money for the National Health Service of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a multiple technology appraisal. Our review found that: For children aged between 12 and 18 years, abrocitinib and a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg) are good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who need a first systemic treatment, upadacitinib is unlikely to be good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could be good value for money for the National Health Service if they are used on their own. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, but need to take it with steroid cream, abrocitinib 100 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could all be good value for money for the National Health Service.

Economic Benefit from Improvements in Quality of Life with Upadacitinib: Comparisons with Tofacitinib and Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the economic benefit of upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy from improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data were analyzed from two trials of upadacitinib (SELECT-NEXT and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY) and one trial of tofacitinib (ORAL-Standard) that collected HRQOL measurements using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey in patients with RA. Direct medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) for patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and methotrexate were derived from observed SF-36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in the SELECT trials using a regression algorithm. Direct medical costs PPPM for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily were obtained from a published analysis of SF-36 PCS and MCS scores observed in the ORAL-Standard trial. Short-term (12-14 weeks) and long-term (48 weeks) estimates of direct medical costs PPPM were compared between upadacitinib and tofacitinib and between upadacitinib and methotrexate. RESULTS: Over 12 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $252 lower (95% CI $72, $446) for upadacitinib-treated patients versus tofacitinib-treated patients. Medical costs PPPM at weeks 24 and 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $1759; 95% CI $1162, $2449) were significantly lower for upadacitinib than for tofacitinib. Over 14 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $399 lower (95% CI $158, $620) for patients treated with upadacitinib monotherapy compared with those treated with methotrexate alone. Direct medical costs at week 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $2044; 95% CI $1221, $2846) were significantly lower for upadacitinib monotherapy compared with methotrexate alone. CONCLUSION: In the short and long term, upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy were associated with significantly lower direct medical costs for patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02675426, NCT02706951, and NCT00853385.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of dolutegravir/lamivudine for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir(DTG)/lamivudine(3TC) is the first 2-drug regimen recommended as an initial treatment for people living with HIV (PLHIV). OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and potential budget impact of DTG/3TC in the US healthcare setting. METHODS: A previously published hybrid decision-tree and Markov cohort state transition model was adapted to estimate the incremental costs and health outcome benefits over a patients' lifetime. DTG/3TC was compared with current standard of care in treatment naive and treatment experienced virologically suppressed PLHIV. Health states included in the model were based upon virologic response and CD4 cell count, with death as an absorbing state. Clinical data was informed by the Phase III GEMINI 1 and 2 clinical trials, a published network meta-analysis (NMA) in treatment-naive patients and the Phase III TANGO clinical trial in treatment experienced patients. Costs and utilities were informed by published data and discounted annually at a rate of 3%. A separate 5-year budget impact analysis was conducted assuming 5%-15% uptake in eligible treatment naive and 10%-30% uptake in eligible treatment experienced patients. RESULTS: In the treatment naive analyses based on GEMINI 1 and 2, DTG/3TC dominated, i.e., was less costly and more effective, than all comparators. DTG/3TC resulted in 0.083 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a cost saving of $199,166 compared with the DTG + tenofovir disoproxil(TDF)/emtricitabine(FTC) comparator arm. The incremental QALY and cost savings for DTG/3TC compared with DTG/abacavir(ABC)/3TC, cobicistat-boosted darunavir(DRV/c)/tenofovir alafenamide(TAF)/FTC, and bictegravir (BIC)/TAF/FTC, based on NMA results were 0.465, 0.142, and 0.698, and $42,948, $122,846, and $44,962, respectively. In the analyses of treatment-experienced virologically suppressed patients based on TANGO, DTG/3TC offered slightly lower QALYs (-0.037) with an estimated savings of $78,730 when compared with continuation of TAF-based regimen (TBR). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that these conclusions were relatively insensitive to alternative parameter estimates. The budget impact analysis estimated that by 5th year a total of 70,240 treatment naive patients and 1,340,480 treatment experienced patients could be eligible to be prescribed DTG/3TC. The estimated budget savings over 5 years ranged from $1.12b to $3.35b (corresponding to 27,512 to 82,536 on DTG/3TC by year 5) in the lowest and highest uptake scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, DTG/3TC with its comparable efficacy and lower drug acquisition costs, has the potential to offer significant cost savings to US healthcare payers for the initial treatment of treatment naive patients and as a treatment switching option for virologically suppressed patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded in full by ViiV healthcare, Brentford, UK. Medical writing to support this study was also funded in full by ViiV Healthcare, Brentford, UK. Butler, Hayward, and Jacob are employees of HEOR Ltd, the company performing this study funded by ViiV Healthcare. Anderson is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline and owns shares in the company. Punekar, Evitt, and Oglesby are employees of ViiV Healthcare and own stocks in GlaxoSmithKline.

Updated assessment of risks and benefits of dolutegravir versus efavirenz in new antiretroviral treatment initiators in sub-Saharan Africa: modelling to inform treatment guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir is being considered in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa instead of efavirenz for people initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) because of superior tolerability and a lower risk of resistance emergence. WHO requested updated modelling results for its 2019 Antiretroviral Guidelines update, which was restricted to the choice of dolutegravir or efavirenz in new ART initiators. In response to this request, we modelled the risks and benefits of alternative policies for initial first-line ART regimens. METHODS: We updated an existing individual-based model of HIV transmission and progression in adults to consider information on the risk of neural tube defects in women taking dolutegravir at time of conception, as well as the effects of dolutegravir on weight gain. The model accounted for drug resistance in determining viral suppression, with consequences for clinical outcomes and mother-to-child transmission. We sampled distributions of parameters to create various epidemic setting scenarios, which reflected the diversity of epidemic and programmatic situations in sub-Saharan Africa. For each setting scenario, we considered the situation in 2018 and compared ART initiation policies of an efavirenz-based regimen in women intending pregnancy, and a dolutegravir-based regimen in others, and a dolutegravir-based regimen, including in women intending pregnancy. We considered predicted outcomes over a 20-year period from 2019 to 2039, used a 3% discount rate, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$500 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted. FINDINGS: Considering updated information on risks and benefits, a policy of ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen rather than an efavirenz-based regimen, including in women intending pregnancy, is predicted to bring population health benefits (10 990 DALYs averted per year) and to be cost-saving (by $2·9 million per year), leading to a reduction in the overall population burden of disease of 16 735 net DALYs per year for a country with an adult population size of 10 million. The policy involving ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen in women intending pregnancy was cost-effective in 87% of our setting scenarios and this finding was robust in various sensitivity analyses, including around the potential negative effects of weight gain. INTERPRETATION: In the context of a range of modelled setting scenarios in sub-Saharan Africa, we found that a policy of ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen, including in women intending pregnancy, was predicted to bring population health benefits and be cost-effective, supporting WHO's strong recommendation for dolutegravir as a preferred drug for ART initiators. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Dolutegravir/Abacavir/Lamivudine Single-Tablet Regimen in a Real-Life Cohort of HIV-1 Adult Infected Patients.

Background: Real-life data on single-tablet regimen (STR) dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) is scarce, and concerns about DTG neuropsychiatric adverse events (NP-AEs) have recently arisen. Objective: To explore the effectiveness and safety, in particular NP-AEs, of DTG/ABC/3TC in a cohort of HIV-1 adult infected patients. Pill burden, adherence to this STR, and the impact of switching on costs were also evaluated. Methods: This was an observational, retrospective study. The study population included antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive and treatment-experienced (TE) patients who started DTG/ABC/3TC between February 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016. Effectiveness and safety were analyzed at week 48 (W48) by intention-to-treat analysis. The Cox regression model was used to investigate predictors of DTG/ABC/3TC discontinuation. Results: A total of 253 patients were included (44 ART naïve, 209 TE). At W48, the proportion of patients with virological suppression was 72.7% (95% CI = 58.4-87.0) in ART-naive patients, 85.6% (95% CI = 80.3-90.9) in previously suppressed TE patients, and 86.4% (95% CI = 65.1-97.1) in previously not suppressed TE patients. The rate of protocol-defined virological failure was 4.3%. The incidence of AEs was higher in the subgroup of ART-naive patients (56.1% vs 39.0%), with a rate of interruptions for this reason of 13.6% and 7.6%, respectively. The incidence of NP-AEs was 20.6%, with 3.9% of patients requiring discontinuation. Patients who had switched from a raltegravir-containing regimen discontinued DTG/ABC/3TC because of AEs more frequently (relative risk = 2.83; 95% CI = 1.04-7.72; P = 0.041) in the multivariate analysis. After switching to DTG/ABC/3TC, the median pill burden was reduced from 3 to 1 and the proportion of patients with an adherence <90%, from 20.1% to 12.0%. The annual per-patient ART costs increased by €48 (0.6% increase). Conclusion and Relevance: DTG/ABC/3TC is an effective strategy as first-line and switching ART. Our data suggest a worse tolerance in ART-naive patients, although the rate of discontinuation resulting from NP-AEs was relatively low. In the short-term, the adherence was slightly improved without significant changes in costs.

DOLAMA study: Effectiveness, safety and pharmacoeconomic analysis of dual therapy with dolutegravir and lamivudine in virologically suppressed HIV-1 patients.

Dolutegravir (DTG) has shown effectiveness in combination with rilpivirine in with experience of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and with 3TC in naïve patients (GEMINI trial). The main objectives of this real-life study were to analyze the effectiveness and safety of 3TC plus DTG in virologically suppressed HIV-1 patients and to conduct a pharmacoeconomic analysis.We conducted an observational, retrospective and multicenter study of HIV+ patients pretreated for at least 6 months with ART that was then simplified to 3TC + DTG for any reason. We gathered data on viral loads (VLs) during exposure to the DT, calculating the rate with VL < 50 copies/mL at week 48, and on associated adverse effects.The 177 HIV+ patients were collected, 77.4% male, with average age of 48.5 years and mean count of 252.2cell/µL CD4+ nadir lymphocytes; 96.6% had VL < 50 copies/mL and 674 cells/µL CD4+ lymphocytes. Median time since HIV diagnosis was 15 years, and median ART duration was 13 years, and 34.5% of patients were on mono- or dual-therapy before the switch. At week 48, 82.4% of patients had VL < 50 cop/µL using an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, 89.6% according to mITT, and 96.7% according to Per-Protocol analysis. 3.3% patients had virological failure (VF). These effectiveness data and costs were compared with those for 2 reference triple therapies (DTG/ABC/3TC and EVG/cobi/FTC/TAF) in a cost minimization analysis, showing cost savings with administration of DTG+3TC (2741 &OV0556;/year vs DTG/ABC/3TC and 4164 &OV0556;/year vs EVG/cobi/FTC/TAF) and in a cost-effectiveness analysis, finding the DT to be the most cost-effective approach (ICER = -548 vs DTG/ABC/3TC and ICER = -4,627&OV0556; vs EVG/cobi/FTC/TAF)The combination of 3TC with DTG appears to be a safe and effective option for the simplification of ART in pretreated and virologically stable HIV-positive patients, being cost-effective and offering the same effectiveness as the triple therapy it replaces.

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.

Dolutegravir for first-line antiretroviral therapy in low-income and middle-income countries: uncertainties and opportunities for implementation and research.

A new first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen containing dolutegravir is being rolled out in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In studies from predominantly high-income settings, dolutegravir-based regimens had superior efficacy, tolerability, and durability compared with existing first-line regimens. However, several questions remain about the roll out of dolutegravir in LMICs, where most people with HIV are women of reproductive age, tuberculosis prevalence can be high, and access to viral load and HIV drug resistance testing is limited. Findings from cohort studies suggest that dolutegravir is safe when initiated in pregnancy, but more data are needed to determine the risk of adverse birth outcomes when dolutegravir-based regimens are initiated before conception. Increasing access to viral load testing to monitor the effectiveness of dolutegravir remains crucial, but the best strategy to manage patients with viraemia is unclear. Furthermore, evidence to support the effectiveness of dolutegravir when given with tuberculosis treatment is scarce, particularly in programmatic settings in LMICs. Lastly, whether nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance will affect the long-term efficacy of dolutegravir-based regimens in first-line, and potentially second-line, ART is unknown. Clinical trials, cohorts, and surveillance of HIV drug resistance will be necessary to answer these questions and to maximise the benefits of this new regimen.

The transition to dolutegravir and other new antiretrovirals in low-income and middle-income countries: what are the issues?

: There are currently approximately 16 million people taking NNRTI-based first-line treatment in low-income and middle-income countries. Most of these patients are using the combination of tenofovir (TDF), lamivudine (3TC) and efavirenz (EFV). The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG) has shown an improved safety profile compared with EFV in randomized studies. DTG also has a high barrier to development of drug resistance. New co-formulated tablets with TDF/3TC/DTG are being introduced into LMICs, for a median price of $75 per person-year. The prodrug of TDF, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is cheaper to manufacture than TDF. A combined pill with TAF/3TC/DTG is also being launched in LMICs, at a similar low price. However, the clinical development programmes for DTG and TAF did not include extensive analysis of several key populations: pregnant women, people with HIV-tuberculosis (TB) coinfection taking rifampicin-based treatment, and treatment-naive or pretreated patients with NRTI drug resistance. An observational study in Botswana has shown an increased risk of neural tube defects when dolutegravir is used in early pregnancy. In LMICs, only 50% of patients have access to regular viral load testing, and genotypic resistance testing is rarely performed. There is currently no clinical data to support switching patients from TDF/3TC/EFV directly to TDF/3TC/DTG if their viral load is either detectable or unknown. New clinical trials and observational studies will be needed to better understand the consequences of this switch of treatment in LMICs. Clinical trials of new antiretrovirals in key populations should be conducted earlier in their development. This will ensure that new treatments can be introduced into LMICs soon after their launch in high-income countries.

The cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of a dolutegravir-based regimen as first-line treatment of HIV infection in India.

INTRODUCTION: Dolutegravir (DTG)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for first-line HIV treatment in the US and Europe. Efavirenz (EFV)-based regimens remain the standard of care (SOC) in India. We examined the clinical and economic impact of DTG-based first-line ART in the setting of India's recent guidelines change to treating all patients with HIV infection regardless of CD4 count. METHODS: We used a microsimulation of HIV disease, the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)-International model, to project outcomes in ART-naive patients under two strategies: (1) SOC: EFV/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/lamivudine (3TC); and (2) DTG: DTG + TDF/3TC. Regimen-specific inputs, including virologic suppression at 48 weeks (SOC: 82% vs. DTG: 90%) and annual costs ($98 vs. $102), were informed by clinical trial data and other sources and varied widely in sensitivity analysis. We compared incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), measured in $/year of life saved (YLS), to India's per capita gross domestic product ($1600 in 2015). We compared the budget impact and HIV transmission effects of the two strategies for the estimated 444,000 and 916,000 patients likely to initiate ART in India over the next 2 and 5 years. RESULTS: Compared to SOC, DTG improved 5-year survival from 76.7% to 83.0%, increased life expectancy from 22.0 to 24.8 years (14.0 to 15.5 years, discounted), averted 13,000 transmitted HIV infections over 5 years, increased discounted lifetime care costs from $3040 to $3240, and resulted in a lifetime ICER of $130/YLS, less than 10% of India's per capita GDP in 2015. DTG maintained an ICER below 50% of India's per capita GDP as long as the annual three-drug regimen cost was ≤$180/year. Over a 2- or 5-year horizon, total undiscounted outlays for HIV-related care were virtually the same for both strategies. CONCLUSIONS: A generic DTG-based regimen is likely to be cost-effective and should be recommended for initial therapy of HIV infection in India.

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.