ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) viral load determinations are among the most important markers for the follow-up of patients infected with these viruses. Microbiology laboratories have a variety of tools to ensure the accuracy of the results obtained, including external quality control programmes such as that of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC). This article summarises the results of the 2016 SEIMC External Quality Control Programme for HIV-1, HCV, and HBV viral loads. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the HIV-1 programme, a total of 5 standards were sent. One standard consisted of seronegative human plasma, while the remaining 4 contained plasma from 3 different viremic patients, in the range of 2-5 log10 copies/mL. A significant proportion of the laboratories (40% on average) obtained values out of the accepted range (mean ± 0.25 log10 copies/mL), depending on the standard and on the method used for quantification. The HBV and HCV programme consisted of 2 standards with different viral load contents. Most of the participants, 86.5% in the case of HCV and 85.6% in the case of HBV, obtained results that were all within the accepted range (mean ± 1.96 SD log10 UI/mL). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this analysis reinforce the utility of proficiency programmes to ensure the quality of the results obtained by a particular laboratory. Due to the marked interlaboratory variability, it is advisable to use the same method and the same laboratory for patient follow-up. Supplement information: This article is part of a supplement entitled «SEIMC External Quality Control Programme. Year 2016¼, which is sponsored by Roche, Vircell Microbiologists, Abbott Molecular and Francisco Soria Melguizo, S.A. © 2019 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica. All rights reserved.
Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , HIV-1 , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis B virus , Quality Control , Viral Load , Genotype , Hepacivirus/genetics , Humans , Infections , Microbiology , Program Evaluation , Societies, Medical , SpainABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: GESIDA (AIDS Study Group) has proposed preferred regimens of antiretroviral treatment as initial therapy in HIV infected patients. The objective of this analysis is to compare the costs and effectiveness of darunavir/r QD and other ritonavir-boosted (/r) protease inhibitors (PIs) currently recommended in GESIDA guidelines for treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: A cost-efficacy model compared the boosted PIs recommended as preferred or alternative treatment choices, each used with a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Efficacy was measured by 48-week virological response (viral load < 50 copies/mL) adjusted by baseline viral load and CD4 cell count. To generate efficiency frontiers and cost-efficacy ratios, one-year antiretroviral therapy costs in Spain, and 48-week efficacy values were used. RESULTS: The model estimated that starting treatment with darunavir/r QD was the most cost-effective choice compared with the other preferred PI/r based therapies. The average cost per patient with a virological response was lower for darunavir/r QD (13,420) than for atazanavir/r QD (14,000), or lopinavir/r BID (13,815). Among the preferred PI/r-based therapies, darunavir/r QD also was estimated to be the most efficient option for treatment-naïve patients. Atazanavir/r QD and lopinavir/r BID were found to be «dominated¼ by darunavir/r) and, consequently, were outside the efficiency frontier of PI/r-based first-line treatment. Given a fixed budget of 10 million euros for PI/r-based first-line therapy, the model estimated that darunavir/r QD would yield more responders (745) than atazanavir/r QD (714), or lopinavir/r BID (724). At the same time, darunavir/r QD would reduce the number of individuals failing treatment (150) compared with atazanavir/r QD (172) and lopinavir/r BID (286). CONCLUSIONS: In this model, darunavir/r QD was found to be the most cost-effective choice, among the preferred PI/r-based therapies recommended in the Spanish guidelines for treatment-naïve patients.