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.

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.

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.

The Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of 2-Drug Dolutegravir-Lamivudine Regimens for the Treatment of HIV Infection in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recommended human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment regimens in the United States contain 3 antiretroviral agents, costing >$30 000/person/year. Pilot studies are evaluating the efficacy of dual therapy with dolutegravir (DTG) and lamivudine (3TC). We examined the potential cost-effectiveness and budget impact of DTG + 3TC regimens in the United States. METHODS: Using a mathematical model, we projected the clinical and economic outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive patients under 4 strategies: (1) no ART (for modeling comparison); (2) 2-drug: initial regimen of DTG + 3TC; (3) induction-maintenance: 48-week induction regimen of 3 drugs (DTG/abacavir [ABC]/3TC), followed by DTG + 3TC maintenance if virologically suppressed; and (4) standard of care: 3-drug regimen of DTG/ABC/3TC. Strategy-dependent model inputs, varied widely in sensitivity analyses, included 48-week virologic suppression (88%-93%), subsequent virologic failure (0.1%-0.6%/month), and Medicaid-discounted ART costs ($15 200-$39 600/year). A strategy was considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <$100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: The 3 ART strategies had the same 5-year survival rates (90%). The ICER was $22 500/QALY for induction-maintenance and >$500 000/QALY for standard of care. Two-drug was the preferred strategy only when DTG + 3TC 48-week virologic suppression rate exceeded 90%. With 50% uptake of either induction-maintenance or 2-drug for ART-naive patients, cost savings totaled $550 million and $800 million, respectively, within 5 years; savings reached >$3 billion if 25% of currently suppressed patients were switched to DTG + 3TC maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Should DTG + 3TC demonstrate high rates of virologic suppression, this regimen will be cost-effective and would save >$500 million in ART costs in the United States over 5 years.

Cost-effectiveness of novel regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus.

BACKGROUND: New regimens for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have shorter treatment durations and increased rates of sustained virologic response compared with existing therapies but are extremely expensive. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatments under different assumptions about their price and efficacy. DESIGN: Discrete-event simulation. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Treatment-naive patients infected with chronic HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Usual care (boceprevir-ribavirin-pegylated interferon [PEG]) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG and 3 PEG-free regimens: sofosbuvir-simeprevir, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir. For genotypes 2 and 3, usual care (ribavirin-PEG) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin (genotype 3 only). OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted costs (in 2014 U.S. dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Assuming sofosbuvir, simeprevir, daclatasvir, and ledipasvir cost $7000, $5500, $5500, and $875 per week, respectively, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was cost-effective for genotype 1 and cost $12 825 more per QALY than usual care. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost $110 000 and $691 000 per QALY, respectively. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin cost $73 000 per QALY, sofosbuvir-ribavirin was more costly and less effective than usual care, and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost more than $396 000 per QALY at assumed prices. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was the optimal strategy in most simulations for genotype 1 and would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $5500. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $2250 per week. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $1500 per week. LIMITATION: Data are lacking on real-world effectiveness of new treatments and some prices. CONCLUSION: From a societal perspective, novel treatments for HCV are cost-effective compared with usual care for genotype 1 and probably genotype 3 but not for genotype 2. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: CVS Health.

Cost analysis of sofosbuvir/ribavirin versus sofosbuvir/simeprevir for genotype 1 hepatitis C virus in interferon-ineligible/intolerant individuals.

UNLABELLED: Treatment guidance for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) released by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) offers two options for interferon (IFN)-ineligible/intolerant individuals with genotype 1 infection: sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/RBV) for 24 weeks or sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF/SMV) for 12 weeks. A 24-week course of SOF/RBV costs approximately US$169,000, with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates ranging from 52% to 84%; 12 weeks of SOF/SMV costs approximately $150,000, with SVR between 89% and 100%. Because SOF/SMV is currently used off-label, debate exists among physicians and payers about whether it should be prescribed and covered. This article presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatment regimens accounting for costs of drugs, treatment-related medical care, retreatment for individuals who do not achieve SVR, and natural history of continued HCV infection after failed retreatment. Analysis uses a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. In the base-case scenario, SOF/SMV dominated SOF/RBV in a modeled 50-year-old cohort of treatment-naïve and -experienced subjects, excluding those who failed earlier therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir. SOF/SMV yielded lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the average subject, compared to SOF/RBV ($165,336 and 14.69 QALYs vs. $243,586 and 14.45 QALYs, respectively). In base-case cost analysis, the SOF/SMV treatment strategy saved $91,590 per SVR, compared to SOF/RBV. Under all one-way sensitivity scenarios, SOF/SMV remained dominant and resulted in cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a 12-week course of SOF/SMV is a more cost-effective treatment for genotype 1 CHC than 24 weeks of SOF/RBV among IFN-ineligible/intolerant individuals, supporting the AASLD/IDSA guidance and offering implications for both clinical and regulatory decision making as well as pharmaceutical pricing.

A window of opportunity: maximizing the effectiveness of new HCV regimens in the United States with the expansion of the Affordable Care Act.

Patients with chronic HCV have predictable overlapping comorbidities that reduce access to care. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) presents an opportunity to focus on the benefits of the medical home model for integrated chronic disease management. New, highly effective HCV treatment regimens in combination with the medical home model could reduce disease prevalence. We sought to address challenges posed by comorbidities in patients with chronic HCV infection and limitations within our health care system, and recommend solutions to maximize the public benefit from ACA and the new drug regimen.

Minimum costs for producing hepatitis C direct-acting antivirals for use in large-scale treatment access programs in developing countries.

BACKGROUND: Several combinations of 2 or 3 direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) can cure hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the majority of treatment-naive patients. DAAs for HCV infection have similar mechanisms of action and chemical structures to antiretrovirals for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Generic antiretrovirals are currently manufactured at very low prices, to treat 10 million people with HIV/AIDS in developing countries. METHODS: Four HCV DAAs, currently either in phase 3 development or recent approval (daclatasvir, sofosbuvir, simeprevir, faldaprevir), and ribavirin were classified by chemical structure, molecular weight, total daily dose, and complexity of synthesis. The likely range of manufacturing costs per gram of DAA were then projected as formulated product cost, based upon treating a minimum of 1 million patients annually (to arrive at volume demand) combined with an analysis of the complexity of synthesis and a 40% margin for formulation. Projections were then compared with actual costs of antiretrovirals with similar structures. RESULTS: Minimum manufacturing costs of antiretrovirals were US$0.2-$2.1 per gram. The complexity of chemical synthesis for HCV DAAs was ranked from lowest to highest: ribavirin, daclatasvir, sofosbuvir, faldaprevir, and simeprevir. Predicted manufacturing costs (US dollars) for 12-week courses of HCV DAAs were $21-$63 for ribavirin, $10-$30 for daclatasvir, $68-$136 for sofosbuvir, $100-$210 for faldaprevir, and $130-$270 for simeprevir. CONCLUSIONS: Within the next 15 years, large-scale manufacture of 2 or 3 drug combinations of HCV DAAs is feasible, with minimum target prices of $100-$250 per 12-week treatment course. These low prices could make widespread access to HCV treatment in low- and middle-income countries a realistic goal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.