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 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.

Sensitive detection of proteins in polyacrylamide gel via isatoic anhydride derivatization: Introduction of a low-cost fluorescent prelabeling procedure.

Here, we introduce isatoic anhydride as a sensitive and commodious fluorescent prelabel for detection of proteins in one-dimensional polyacrylamide gels. High reactivity of isatoic anhydride with nucleophiles in mild alkaline environments makes it an appropriate tag for labeling of biomolecules. In this study, we show that preelectrophoresis labeling of proteins with isatoic anhydride for few minutes at room temperature allows detection of 2-4 ng of standard proteins, BSA and lysozyme, per band. Proteins were successfully labeled in the presence of a wide range of common biological reagents and in crude cell extract. The labeled proteins have the same electrophoretic migration in comparison to unlabeled proteins; however the application of saturation labeling method results in slight band broadening. Compatibility of the method with downstream processes was assessed by tryptic digestion of labeled proteins and study of peptide mixture using gel electrophoresis which revealed partial digestion of labeled proteins due to lysine modification. The present procedure is sensitive, rapid, and inexpensive and is a promising alternative for current protein staining procedures, where downstream processes are not desired.

Didanosine, lamivudine-emtricitabine and efavirenz as initial therapy in naive patients.

There are currently several suitable and different antiretroviral regimens to start highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), and many clinicians and patients prefer once-daily therapy. The efficacy and potency of efavirenz (EFV) has been established in many clinical trials and cohort studies; its pharmacokinetics, allowing for a convenient once-daily administration, make EFV one of the first agents to be included in once-daily regimens in naive patients. The two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) accompanying the third drug have become the central skeleton, or the 'backbone' of the therapeutic scheme. Among the different NRTI pairs, a didanosine-lamivudine (3TC) or emtricitabine backbone for combination antiretroviral therapy may be a good option compared with any current NRTI-combinations due to its security, tolerance and once-daily dose. In this article, we review the advantages and drawbacks of didanosine-XTC-EFV as the initial regimen of HAART in HIV-infected patients.

Efavirenz: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in HIV infection.

Efavirenz is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) used in the treatment of patients with HIV infection. Both US and British treatment guidelines for HIV infection recommend NNRTI- or protease inhibitor-based combinations [i.e. with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] as first-line treatmentoptions in the management of HIV disease. Results of a pivotal randomised study (DMP 266-006) comparing efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy in patients with HIV infection (the majority of whom were antiretroviral therapy-naive) showed the efavirenz-based regimen was better tolerated and had greater success in achieving reductions in viral load below the limit of detection. These and other clinical data were incorporated into economic models in 2 analyses, one conducted in the US and the other in Canada. The US analysis examined long term clinical and economic outcomes predicted on the basis of response (viral load and CD4+ cell counts), tolerability and willingness to adhere to therapy. The efavirenz-based regimen was the dominant treatment strategy as it was predicted to improve survival and reduce direct medical costs in the US healthcare system. Compared with the indinavir-containing regimen, survival was increased by 11% (absolute difference) and cumulative costs were reduced by $US10,326 per patient (1998 discounted costs) at 5 years after starting treatment with efavirenz-based therapy. The Canadian analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Ontario healthcare system. This study did not consider differences in clinical efficacy between treatment groups, costs of study medication or outcomes beyond 1 year--all factors that would have favoured the efavirenz-based regimen. Of the 2 treatment options, the efavirenz-based regimen was associated with 7.4% lower average annual medical care costs, primarily because of greater costs associated with adverse clinical events with the indinavir-based regimen. In conclusion, current treatment guidelines for HIV infection recognise efavirenz-based combination regimens as a first-line treatment option. A pivotal comparative clinical trial (DMP 266-006) showed a significantly greater virological response to efavirenz- than indinavir-based triple combination therapy, and the efavirenz-based regimen was better tolerated. These clinical data are supported by pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted in the US and Canada, both of which showed lower medical care costs with the efavirenz-based regimen. The US analysis also predicted long term health benefits, such as improved survival, with efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy. These results must be weighed against the inherent difficulties of predicting long term treatment failure rates from short term data, and the limited number of pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted with efavirenz to date.

Economic analysis of initial HIV treatment. Efavirenz- versus indinavir-containing triple therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and economic outcomes associated with triple therapy containing efavirenz or indinavir and 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs; zidovudine and lamivudine) in HIV-positive patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic model based on viral load and CD4+ cell counts to predict long term outcomes such as progression to AIDS and AIDS-related death was developed and then analysed using data from a randomised clinical trial. Cost estimates from the healthcare system perspective were based on data from 6 state, all-payor databases, the AIDS Cost and Services Utilisation Study, and other literature. Analyses were carried out for time horizons between 5 and 15 years. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: HIV-positive patients with limited exposure to NRTIs. Initial regimens consisted of efavirenz or indinavir, each combined with 2 NRTIs. A maximum of 2 switches to other regimens was permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The efavirenz-containing triple therapy regimen was predicted to prolong survival at a savings of up to 10,923 US dollars (1998 values) relative to initial therapy with the indinavir-containing regimen. Patients who receive efavirenz are expected to have 11% greater survival at 5 years and fewer treatment failures (28 vs 52%, at 2 years). Overall, the economic and health benefits predicted for the efavirenz-containing regimen were robust to reasonable variation in key parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The superior clinical trial outcomes for efavirenz-containing regimens should translate into substantial economic and health benefits.

New drug pricing consensus letter, sign-ons requested.

AIDS: Treatment activists are circulating a letter opposing drug-pricing strategies for abacavir (Ziagen) and efavirenz (Sustiva). The groups are concerned that these drugs will be priced significantly higher than other nucleoside analogs and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The statement notes that higher survival rates should insure drug manufacturers of a steady supply of patients, allowing them to lower prices and still make a profit. Both drugs are appropriate for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, making the potential market for them large. The letter is sponsored by the Fair Price Working Group, which includes members from Project Inform, ACT UP/New York, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, GMHC Treatment Issues, Foundation for AIDS and Immune Research, and AIDS Treatment News. Contact information is included.^ieng

Sparing the protease for some spoils the price for all.

AIDS: DuPont Pharmaceuticals has introduced efavirenz (Sustiva) at a much higher price than was expected. Since it may spare patients from using a protease inhibitor, and it has a once daily-dosing schedule, efavirenz is considered an attractive alternative. Although the drug appears promising, activists are concerned that this could be the beginning of a price escalation throughout the industry, and therefore could boost the overall cost of therapy. HIV activists attempted to meet with representatives from DuPont to discuss pricing.^ieng