Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir With or Without Ribavirin Regimen for Patients Infected With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVES: The combination of pegylated-interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN+RBV) is currently the gold standard in treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients in Malaysia and is reimbursed by the Malaysian authorities. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV) regimen as compared with the PegIFN+RBV or no treatment in chronic HCV Genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients in Malaysia. METHODS: A Markov model based on previously published CE models of HCV was adapted for the Malaysian public healthcare payer perspective, based on good modeling practices. Treatment attributes included efficacy, regimen duration, and EQ-5D treatment-related health utility. Transitional probabilities and health state health utilities were derived from previous studies. Costs were derived from Malaysian data sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties around key variables. RESULTS: Based on the analysis, patients treated with the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV showed less frequent progression to compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related deaths when compared with standard care (ie, PegIFN+RBV or no treatment). At a price of MYR 1846/day, the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective over PegIFN+RBV and yields better outcomes in terms of life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a higher cost, which is still well below the implied willingness to pay threshold of MYR 384 503/QALY. CONCLUSION: The OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective for treatment naïve, treatment experienced, cirrhotic, and noncirrhotic GT1 chronic HCV patients in Malaysia.

Pursuing use of optimal formulations for paediatric HIV epidemic control - a look at the use of LPV/r oral pellets and oral granules.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a significant reduction in mother-to-child transmission of HIV, an estimated 180,000 children were infected with HIV in 2017, and only 52% of children under 15 years of age living with HIV (CLHIV) are on life-saving antiretroviral therapy (ART). Without effective treatment, half of CLHIV die before the age of two years and only one in five survives to five years of age. DISCUSSION: Over the past four years, the United States Food and Drug Administration tentatively approved new formulations of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the form of oral pellets and oral granules. However, the slow uptake of the aforementioned formulations in the low- and middle-income countries with the highest paediatric HIV burden is largely due to three challenges: limited manufacturing capacity; current unit cost of the pellets and granules; and slow uptake of these new formulations by policy makers and health care workers. CONCLUSIONS: Solutions to overcome these barriers include ensuring availability of an adequate supply of LPV/r oral pellets and oral granules, considering all programmatic and clinical factors when selecting paediatric ART formulations, and leveraging current resources to decrease paediatric HIV morbidity and mortality.

Short-term cost analysis of raltegravir versus atazanavir + ritonavir or darunavir + ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States.

METHODS: Ninety-six-week costs for antiretroviral drugs, adverse event management, and HIV care for individuals initiating RAL, ATV/r, or DRV/r as first-line therapy for HIV-1 infection were estimated using an economic model. Efficacy and safety data (mean CD4 cell count changes, discontinuation rates, grade 3/4 adverse event incidence) for each regimen through 96 weeks of treatment were taken from the ACTG 5257 clinical trial. Antiretroviral drug costs for each initial regimen and for each substitution regimen, as used by individuals who discontinued their initial regimen, were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Adverse event management costs and HIV care costs, stratified by CD4 cell count range, were taken from published sources and inflated to 2016 dollars. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Cost outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0%. RESULTS: Total 96-week costs were $81,231 for RAL, $88,064 for ATV/r, and $87,680 for DRV/r, where differences were primarily due to lower antiretroviral drug costs for RAL than for ATV/r or DRV/r. These results were found to be robust in scenario and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to the DRV/r and ATV/r regimens, the RAL regimen had the lowest cost for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States.

Initiatives to challenge patent barriers and their relationship with the price of medicines procured by the Brazilian Unified National Health System. / Iniciativas de enfrentamento da barreira patentária e a relação com o preço de medicamentos adquiridos pelo Sistema Único de Saúde.

Since 1996, when antiretroviral (ARV) treatments started being guaranteed to people living with HIV in Brazil, the government has faced the challenge of ensuring sustainability of this policy within a context of incorporating patented medicines. This article sought to analyze the historical series of the price of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in Brazil and in the international market also considering the initiatives to challenge patent barriers between 2001 and 2012. The methods used were mapping initiatives to challenge LPV/r patent barriers and the analysis of historical series of its price in Brazil and in the international market. Results show that, between 2001 and 2003, there were efforts to use compulsory licensing as a threat. From 2005 to 2007, initiatives by different satkeholders were identified: declaration of public interest, pre-grant opposition ("support to examination") and civil action. From 2006 to 2008, compulsory licensing initiatives in other countries resulted in a price reduction in Brazil. Between 2009 and 2012, there was a 30% reduction in the Brazilian purchasing price.

Cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral regimen ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b (GT1b) therapy ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r) vs daclatasvir + asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) and no treatment in patients without cirrhosis. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that compared OBV/PTV/r against DCV/ASV and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in Y93H mutation-negative, GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis were also included. METHODS: A health state transition model was developed to capture the natural history of HCV. A CEA over a lifetime horizon was performed from the perspective of the public healthcare payer in Japan. Costs, health utilities, and rates of disease progression were derived from published studies. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of OBV/PTV/r and DCV/ASV were extracted from Japanese clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested. RESULTS: OBV/PTV/r exhibited superior clinical outcomes vs comparators. For OBV/PTV/r, DCV/ASV, and no treatment, the lifetime risk of decompensated cirrhosis in treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis was 0.4%, 1.4%, and 9.2%, and hepatocellular carcinoma was 6.5%, 11.4%, and 49.9%, respectively. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were higher in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis treated with OBV/PTV/r (16.41 and 16.22) vs DCV/ASV (15.83 and 15.66) or no treatment (11.34 and 11.23). In treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV were JPY 1,684,751/QALY and JPY 1,836,596/QALY, respectively; OBV/PTV/r was dominant compared with no treatment. In scenario analysis, including GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis who were Y93H mutation-negative, the ICER of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5 million/QALY, while the ICER of SOF/LDV vs OBV/PTV/r was above this threshold; thus, OBV/PTV/r was cost-effective. CONCLUSION: OBV/PTV/r appears to be a cost-effective treatment for chronic HCV GT1b infection against DCV/ASV. OBV/PTV/r dominates no treatment in patients without cirrhosis.

Economic and Public Health Impacts of Policies Restricting Access to Hepatitis C Treatment for Medicaid Patients.

BACKGROUND: Interferon-free hepatitis C treatment regimens are effective but very costly. The cost-effectiveness, budget, and public health impacts of current Medicaid treatment policies restricting treatment to patients with advanced disease remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease compared with a strategy providing unrestricted access to hepatitis C treatment, assess the budget and public health impact of each strategy, and estimate the feasibility and long-term effects of increased access to treatment for patients with hepatitis C. METHODS: Using a Markov model, we compared two strategies for 45- to 55-year-old Medicaid beneficiaries: 1) Current Practice-only advanced disease is treated before Medicare eligibility and 2) Full Access-both early-stage and advanced disease are treated before Medicare eligibility. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die each year. Morbidity was reduced after successful treatment. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and compared the costs and public health effects of each strategy from the perspective of Medicare alone as well as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective. We varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Full Access was less costly and more effective than Current Practice for all cohorts and perspectives, with differences in cost ranging from $5,369 to $11,960 and in effectiveness from 0.82 to 3.01 quality-adjusted life-years. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Full Access was cost saving in 93% of model iterations. Compared with Current Practice, Full Access averted 5,994 hepatocellular carcinoma cases and 121 liver transplants per 100,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease are more costly and less effective than unrestricted, full-access strategies. Collaboration between state and federal payers may be needed to realize the full public health impact of recent innovations in hepatitis C treatment.

Drug Pricing Evolution in Hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the association between the stepwise increase in the sustained viral response (SVR) and Swiss and United States (US) market prices of drug regimens for treatment-naive, genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the last 25 years. We identified the following five steps in the development of HCV treatment regimens: 1) interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy in the early '90s, 2) IFN-α in combination with ribavirin (RBV), 3) pegylated (peg) IFN-α in combination with RBV, 4) the first direct acting antivirals (DAAs) (telaprevir and boceprevir) in combination with pegIFN-α and RBV, and 5) newer DAA-based regimens, such as sofosbuvir (which is or is not combined with ledipasvir) and fixed-dose combination of ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir and ombitasvir in combination with dasabuvir. DESIGN: We performed a linear regression and mean cost analysis to test for an association between SVRs and HCV regimen prices. We conducted a sensitivity analysis using US prices at the time of US drug licensing. We selected randomized clinical trials of drugs approved for use in Switzerland from 1997 to July 2015 including treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. RESULTS: We identified a statistically significant positive relationship between the proportion of patients achieving SVRs and the costs of HCV regimens in Switzerland (with a bivariate ordinary least square regression yielding an R2 measure of 0.96) and the US (R2 = 0.95). The incremental cost per additional percentage of SVR was 597.14 USD in Switzerland and 1,063.81 USD in the US. CONCLUSION: The pricing of drugs for HCV regimens follows a value-based model, which has a stable ratio of costs per achieved SVR over 25 years. Health care systems are struggling with the high resource use of these new agents despite their obvious long-term advantages for the overall health of the population. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry, health care payers and other stakeholders are challenged with finding new drug pricing schemes to treat the entire population infected with HCV.

Cost-Effectiveness of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Treatments in Patients Coinfected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: New treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) are highly effective in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for genotype 1 (GT1) HCV in HIV-coinfected patients. METHODS: A Markov model based on HCV natural history was used. The base-case analysis included both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternatives were ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (3D ± R) for 12 or 24 weeks, sofosbuvir plus peginterferon and R (SOF + PR) for 12 weeks, SOF + R for 24 weeks, and no treatment (NT). A subgroup analysis restricted to treatment-naïve, non-cirrhotic patients compared 3D ± R for 12 weeks to SOF plus ledipasvir (LDV) for 12 weeks and NT. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were measured over a lifetime horizon and included rates of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the base-case, SOF + R was dominated by both SOF + PR and 3D ± R. Compared to SOF + PR, 3D ± R had an ICER of $45,581. The lifetime rates of liver morbidity and mortality were lower among those treated with 3D ± R compared to SOF + PR, SOF + R, or NT. In the subgroup analysis, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY (ICER $27,496). SOF/LDV had an ICER of $104,489 per QALY gained compared to 3D ± R. CONCLUSION: In the GT1 HCV population coinfected with HIV, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT, SOF + R, and SOF + PR. In the treatment-naïve sub-population, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT and SOF/LDV.

Cost-effectiveness of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir, Dasabuvir+Ribavirin for US Post-Liver Transplant Recurrent Genotype 1 HCV.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Orthotopic liver transplant patients with recurrent hepatitis C (HCV) historically have had limited treatment options. Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir and ribavirin (3D+R) was approved by the FDA in December 2014 for liver transplant recipients with recurrent genotype 1 HCV, in whom it is effective and well-tolerated. METHODS: Using a two-phase Markov model, we analysed the cost-effectiveness of 3D+R in liver transplant recipients, the only HCV treatment with FDA approval in this population. As a sensitivity analysis, we also considered the cost-effectiveness of pegylated interferon plus ribavirin, the only other therapy with data from Phase III trials in this population. Patients were given one of three options: 3D+R for 24 weeks, pegylated interferon and ribavirin for 48 weeks (PR48) or no treatment (NT). Patients were then followed through subsequent disease progression until death. Outcome measures analysed were: lifetime risks of liver morbidity and mortality, treatment costs, non-treatment medical expenditures, and quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: Treatment with 3D+R was associated with a significantly lower lifetime risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality than treatment with PR48 or NT. 3D+R also was associated with a higher gain in quality-adjusted life years (11.3 compared to 8.25 with NT) and lower discounted overall costs ($423,585 compared to $724,757 with NT). CONCLUSIONS: The use of 3D+R for liver transplant recipients with recurrent HCV is an outcome-improving and cost-effective regimen for this population with limited treatment options and large unmet need.

Cost/efficacy analysis of preferred Spanish AIDS study group regimens and the dual therapy with lopinavir/ritonavir plus lamivudine for initial ART in HIV infected adults.

INTRODUCTION: The National AIDS Plan and the Spanish AIDS study group (GESIDA) proposes "preferred regimens" (PR) of antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients. In 2013, the recommended regimens were all triple therapy regimens. The Gardel Study assessed the efficacy of a dual therapy (DT) combination of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) plus lamivudine (3TC). Our objective is to evaluate the GESIDA PR and the DT regimen LPV/r+3TC cost/efficacy ratios. METHODS: Decision tree models were built. EFFICACY: probability of having viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48. ART regime cost: costs of ART, adverse effects, and drug resistance tests during the first 48 weeks. RESULTS: Cost/efficacy ratios varied between 5,817 and 13,930 euros per responder at 48 weeks, for the DT of LPV/r+3TC and tenofovir DF/emtricitabine+raltegravir, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account the official Spanish prices of ART, the most efficient regimen was DT of LPV/r+3TC, followed by the triple therapy with non-nucleoside containing regimens.

Iniciativas de enfrentamento da barreira patentária e a relação com o preço de medicamentos adquiridos pelo Sistema Único de Saúde / Iniciativas para enfrentarse a la barrera patentaria y su relación con el precio de medicamentos adquiridos por el Sistema Único de Salud / Initiatives to challenge patent barriers and their relationship with the price of medicines procured by the Brazilian Unified National Health System

Resumo: Desde 1996, com a consolidação da oferta do tratamento antirretroviral (ARV) às pessoas vivendo com HIV no Brasil, o governo tem como desafio assegurar a sustentabilidade desta oferta num contexto de incorporação de medicamentos patenteados. O artigo teve como objetivo analisar a série histórica do preço do lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) no Brasil e no mercado internacional à luz de iniciativas de enfrentamento da barreira patentária no período de 2001 a 2012. A metodologia consistiu em mapeamento de iniciativas de enfrentamento da barreira patentária para o LPV/r e análise da série histórica do preço no Brasil e no mercado internacional. Os resultados encontrados apontam que, entre 2001 e 2003, identificaram-se esforços de ameaça de licença compulsória. De 2005 a 2007, identificaram-se iniciativas por diferentes atores: declaração de interesse público, subsídios ao exame e ação civil pública. De 2006 e 2008, iniciativas internacionais de licença compulsória resultaram na redução do preço no Brasil. Entre 2009 e 2012, observa-se uma redução do preço de aquisição pelo Brasil de 30%.

Resumen: Desde 1996, con la consolidación de la oferta de tratamiento antirretroviral (ARV) para las personas viviendo con VIH, el Gobierno de Brasil tiene el desafío de asegurar la sostenibilidad de dicha oferta en un contexto de incorporación de medicamentos patentados. El objetivo de este artículo es analizar la serie histórica del precio del lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) en Brasil y en el mercado internacional, a la luz de iniciativas para enfrentar la barrera patentaria durante el período de 2001 a 2012. La metodología consistió en un mapeo de iniciativas para hacer frente a la barrera patentaria del LPV/r y el análisis de la serie histórica de sus precios de adquisición por el SUS y en el mercado internacional. Entre 2001 y 2003 se identificaron esfuerzos por obtener reducciones de precio de LPV/r, mediante la amenaza de expedición de licencia obligatoria. De 2005 a 2007, se identificaron varias iniciativas de diferentes actores, tales como, la expedición de declaración de interés público, preseentación de subsidios para el examen de solicitudes de patente de este medicamento y la interpesición de acción civil pública. Entre 2006 y 2008, la expedición de licencias obligatorias en el marco de iniciativas internacionales, propiciaron reducciones de precio de LPV/r en Brasil. La reducción promedio del precio de adquisición por parte SUS fue de 30% entre 2009 y 2012.

Abstract: Since 1996, when antiretroviral (ARV) treatments started being guaranteed to people living with HIV in Brazil, the government has faced the challenge of ensuring sustainability of this policy within a context of incorporating patented medicines. This article sought to analyze the historical series of the price of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in Brazil and in the international market also considering the initiatives to challenge patent barriers between 2001 and 2012. The methods used were mapping initiatives to challenge LPV/r patent barriers and the analysis of historical series of its price in Brazil and in the international market. Results show that, between 2001 and 2003, there were efforts to use compulsory licensing as a threat. From 2005 to 2007, initiatives by different satkeholders were identified: declaration of public interest, pre-grant opposition ("support to examination") and civil action. From 2006 to 2008, compulsory licensing initiatives in other countries resulted in a price reduction in Brazil. Between 2009 and 2012, there was a 30% reduction in the Brazilian purchasing price.

Antiretroviral therapy management and rationalisation of available resources.

The treatment of HIV disease has led to a new division of management costs by shifting most of the necessary resources from inpatient treatment to outpatient management. Among the initiatives aimed at rationalising the resources available, we compared efficacy, tolerability and pharmacoeconomic impact of different regimes of antiretroviral therapy (ART). The survey covered the first 50 patients, clinically stable and with good viro-immunological response, who switched in June 2012 from an ART based on the triple combination of tenofovir (TDF), emtricitabine (FTC) and a protease inhibitor boosted with ritonavir (PI/r) or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), to a treatment based on abacavir (ABC), lamivudine (3TC) and a PI/r or NNRTI. Of the 50 patients who operated the switch, 39 replaced a PI with nevirapine (NVP), for which the largest group of patients was treated with ABC + 3TC + NVP. On 31 May 2015, all patients completed the observation period of 96 weeks, with a mean observation period of 132 weeks and clinical-laboratory checks every four months. Laboratory analysis revealed an optimal maintenance of viral suppression and absolute and relative number of CD4 + lymphocytes and improving trend of creatinine, proteinuria, serum phosphate and bone alkaline phosphatase. There was a variable effect on lipids, with a drop in triglycerides associated with a modest increase in total cholesterol. Much of the HIV-positive population reporting to our hospitals (>50%) comprises individuals who have for years been in stable viraemic suppression, making a satisfactory immune recovery while in good overall clinical condition. This type of patient was the target of the present survey. At the end of 96 weeks of observation the new regimes were well tolerated and did not lead to viro-immunological or clinical deterioration. Pharmacoeconomic analysis showed better containment of the overall costs. No patient needed to be hospitalised during the observation period.

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for chronic hepatitis C in the US.

BACKGROUND: The standard care of treatment of interferon plus ribavirin (plus protease inhibitor for genotype 1) are effective in 50 % to 70 % of patients with CHC. Several new treatments including Harvoni, Olysio + Sovaldi, Viekira Pak, Sofosbuvir-based regimens characterized with potent inhibitors have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) providing more options for CHC patients. Trials have shown that the new treatments increased the rate to 80% to 95%, though with a substantial increase in cost. In particular, current market pricing of a 12-week course of sofosbuvir is approximately US$84,000. We determine the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in comparison with the standard care of treatments. METHODS: A Markov simulation model of CHC disease progression is used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies based on genotype. The model calculates the expected lifetime medical costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of hypothetical cohorts of identical patients receiving certain treatments. For genotype 1, we compare: (1) peginterferon + ribavirin + telaprevir for 12 weeks, followed by 12 or 24 weeks treatment of peginterferon + ribavirin dependent on HCV RNA level at week 12; (2) Harvoni treatment, 12 weeks; (3) Olysio + Sovaldi, 12 weeks for patients without cirrhosis, 24 weeks for patients with cirrhosis; (4) Viekira Pak + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients without cirrhosis, 24 weeks for patients with cirrhosis; (5) sofosbuvir + peginterferon + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients with or without cirrhosis. For genotypes 2 and 3, treatment strategies include: (1) peginterferon + ribavirin, 24 weeks for treatment-naïve patients; (2) sofosbuvir + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients with genotype 2, 24 weeks for genotype 3; (3) peginterferon + ribavirin as initial treatment, 24 weeks for patients with genotype 2/3, follow-up treatment with sofosbuvir + ribavirin for 12/16 weeks are performed on non-responders and relapsers. RESULTS: Viekira Pak is cost-effective for genotype 1 patients without cirrhosis, whereas Harvoni is cost-effective for genotype 1 patients with cirrhosis. Sofosbuvir-based treatments for genotype 1 in general are not cost-effective due to its substantial high costs. Two-phase treatments with 12-week and 16-week follow-ups are cost-effective for genotype 3 patients and for genotype 2 patients with cirrhosis. The results were shown to be robust over a broad range of parameter values through sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For genotype 1, sofosbuvir-based treatments are not cost-effective compared to Viekira Pak and Harvoni, although a 30% reduction in sofosbuvir price would change this result. Sofosbuvir + ribavirin are cost-effective as second-phase treatments following peginterferon + ribavirin initial treatment for genotypes 2 and 3. However, there is limited data on sofosbuvir-involved treatment, and the results obtained in this study must be interpreted within the model assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected African children less than 3 years of age.

BACKGROUND: The International Maternal, Pediatric, and Adolescent Clinical Trials P1060 trial demonstrated superior outcomes for HIV-infected children less than 3 years old initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) with lopinavir/ritonavir compared to nevirapine, but lopinavir/ritonavir is four-fold costlier. DESIGN/METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)-Pediatric model, with published and P1060 data, to project outcomes under three strategies: no ART; first-line nevirapine (with second-line lopinavir/ritonavir); and first-line lopinavir/ritonavir (second-line nevirapine). The base-case examined South African children initiating ART at age 12 months; sensitivity analyses varied all key model parameters. Outcomes included life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs; dollars/year of life saved ($/YLS)]. We considered interventions with ICERs less than 1× per-capita gross domestic product (South Africa: $7500)/YLS as 'very cost-effective,' interventions with ICERs below 3× gross domestic product/YLS as 'cost-effective,' and interventions leading to longer life expectancy and lower lifetime costs as 'cost-saving'. RESULTS: Projected life expectancy was 2.8 years with no ART. Both ART regimens markedly improved life expectancy and were very cost-effective, compared to no ART. First-line lopinavir/ritonavir led to longer life expectancy (28.8 years) and lower lifetime costs ($41 350/person, from lower second-line costs) than first-line nevirapine (27.6 years, $44 030). First-line lopinavir/ritonavir remained cost-saving or very cost-effective compared to first-line nevirapine unless: liquid lopinavir/ritonavir led to two-fold higher virologic failure rates or 15-fold greater costs than in the base-case, or second-line ART following first-line lopinavir/ritonavir was very ineffective. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of P1060 data, first-line lopinavir/ritonavir leads to longer life expectancy and is cost-saving or very cost-effective compared to first-line nevirapine. This supports WHO guidelines, but increasing access to pediatric ART is critical regardless of the regimen used.

[Lack of bioavailability of generic lopinavir/ritonavir not prequalified by WHO marketed in Africa (Congo Brazzaville)]. / Absence de bio-équivalence d'un générique du lopinavir/ritonavir non préqualifié par l'OMS commercialisé en Afrique (Congo Brazzaville).

Although second-line generic antiretroviral drugs are of great value in developing countries there are concerns regarding their quality and safety. This study is a case report and pharmacological study in healthy volunteers. A French subject of sub-saharan origin who visited Republic of Congo received a post-exposure treatment with AZT+3TC and LPV/r (200/50 mg, Arga-L®, India) following unprotected sexual intercourse. Two days later, in France, tests showed that plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were undetectable. The WHO prequalification list showed Arga-L® was not prequalified. A pharmacological study in healthy volunteers evaluated oral bioavailability: plasma concentrations of generic LPV/r Arga-L® and LPV/r Kaletra® (400/100 mg) were measured after one single dose at 7 days apart in four healthy volunteers. Concentrations of Arga-L® at 12 h after intake were considerably lower than those of Kaletra®, revealing very low oral bioavailability of generic lopinavir and ritonavir (<10%) compared to the brand-name drug. We found that Arga-L®, despite having adequate qualitative and quantitative drug contents, had very poor bio availability compared to Kaletra®. In order to avoid the selection and the spread of drug-resistant HIV strains, rigorous pharmacological monitoring of generic antiretroviral drugs that are not pre-qualified by WHO, but are marketed in Africa, must be a priority for health authorities.

Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In naive Subjects (ARTEMIS) clinical trial examined the efficacy and safety of two ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r), darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily (QD) and lopinavir/r 800/200 mg daily, both used in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of the darunavir/r regimen compared with the lopinavir/r regimen in treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in Canada. METHODS: A Markov model with a 3-month cycle time and six CD4 cell-count-based health states (>500, 351-500, 201-500, 101-200, 51-100, and 0-50 cells/mm(3)) followed a cohort of treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection through initial darunavir/r or lopinavir/r combination therapy and a common set of subsequent regimens over the course of their remaining lifetimes. Population characteristics and transition probabilities were estimated from the ARTEMIS clinical trial and other trials. Costs (in 2014 Canadian dollars), utilities, and mortality were estimated from Canadian sources and published literature. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5% per year. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, including a simple indirect comparison of the darunavir/r initial regimen with an atazanavir/r-based regimen. RESULTS: In the base-case lifetime analysis, individuals receiving initial therapy with the darunavir/r regimen experienced 0.25 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with lower antiretroviral drug costs (-$14,246) and total costs (-$18,402) than individuals receiving the lopinavir/r regimen, indicating that darunavir/r dominated lopinavir/r. In an indirect comparison with an atazanavir/r-based regimen, the darunavir/r regimen remained the dominant choice, but with lower cost savings (-$2,303) and QALY gains (0.02). Results were robust to a wide range of other changes in input parameter values, population characteristics, and modeling assumptions. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the darunavir/r regimen was cost effective compared with the lopinavir/r regimen in over 86% of simulations for willingness-to-pay thresholds between $0 and $100,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Darunavir/r 800/100 mg QD may be a cost-effective PI/r component of initial antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in Canada.

Does a significant reduction in malaria risk make lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART cost-effective for children with HIV in co-endemic, low-resource settings?

BACKGROUND: HIV infection and malaria co-infection is not uncommon among children in co-endemic regions, and evidence suggests that HIV is a risk factor for severe malaria among children. HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) are highly effective in pediatric HIV treatment regimens, however, their effectiveness against malaria has been mixed, with some PIs demonstrating in vitro activity against Plasmodium falciparum. Recent findings suggest lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based treatment regimens reduce the incidence of malaria infection by over 40% in pediatric HIV patients compared to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens. METHODS: We assessed whether a significant reduction in malaria risk makes LPV/r-based ART regimens cost-effective compared to NNRTI-based regimens in co-endemic, low-resource settings. We modeled the difference in unit cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) gained among two theoretical groups of HIV+ children under 5 years old receiving ART in a resource-limited setting co-endemic for malaria. The first group received standard NNRTI-based antiretrovirals, the second group received a standard regimen containing LPV/r. We used recent cohort data for the incidence reduction for malaria. Drug costs were taken from the 2011 Clinton Health Access Initiative Antiretroviral (ARV) ceiling price list. DALYs for HIV and malaria were derived from WHO estimates. RESULTS: Our model suggests a unit cost of US$147 per DALY gained for the LPV/r-based group compared to US$37 per DALY gained for the NNRTI-based group. CONCLUSION: In HIV and malaria co-endemic settings, considerations of PI cost effectiveness incorporating known reductions in malaria mortality suggest a nominal increase in DALYs gained for PIs over NNRTI-based regimens for HIV positive children under five on ART. Our analysis was based on several assumptions due to lack of sound data on malaria and HIV DALY attribution among pediatric populations. Further study in this area is required.

Cost-minimization comparison of darunavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve women of childbearing age.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services in the US recommend ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) as a preferred protease inhibitor (PI) for HIV-positive antiretroviral-naїve pregnant women. These guidelines also cite ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV + RTV) as an alternative PI in this clinical scenario. The purpose of this analysis was to compare economic outcomes for regimens based on these two treatments. STUDY DESIGN: An existing discrete event simulation (DES) model was adapted to conduct a cost-minimization analysis comparing the two regimens in HIV-infected women of childbearing age (WOCBA), from the perspective of a healthcare payer in the US. METHODS: The DES model was used to represent disease states, health events, healthcare encounters, pregnancy, and treatment choices in HIV-infected WOCBA starting treatment with regimens based on either LPV/r or DRV + RTV. It also incorporated parameters for individual patient characteristics, and for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment effectiveness, treatment sequencing, clinical progression, and resource use. Potential events included scheduled physician visits; viral suppression; viral rebound; AIDS-related complications; CHD events; treatment discontinuation and switching; ARV treatment side-effects (SE); and death. The primary outcomes were discounted 5-year and 10-year healthcare costs. Alternative scenarios considered different rates of switching from DRV + RTV to LPV/r upon conception. RESULTS: Compared with DRV + RTV, LPV/r was associated with similar clinical outcomes while offering savings at the 5- and 10-year horizons (of $24,904 and $43,502 per patient, respectively), and in extensive sensitivity analyses. The main driver of the savings was the difference in cost between PIs. CONCLUSIONS: Starting HIV-infected ARV-treatment-naїve WOCBA on an LPV/r-based regimen is cost-saving and provides similar patient outcomes compared to a DRV + RTV-based regimen.