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.

Atazanavir sulfate + cobicistat for the treatment of HIV infection.

INTRODUCTION: During last two decades several drugs were developed to offer long-term benefits in terms of virologic efficacy, favourable tolerability and toxicity profiles in treatment of HIV infection. Pharmacokinetics boosting of protease inhibitor allows a higher genetic barrier, as few or no drug-resistant mutations are detected in patients with virologic failure. Areas covered: Atazanavir sulfate + cobicistat (ATV/c) was recently approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Bioequivalence between cobicistat (COBI) and ritonavir (RTV) as a pharmacoenhancer of ATV was established. Additionally, randomized clinical trials demonstrated that ATV/c and ATV/ritonavir had comparable efficacy and safety profiles. Low rates of virologic failure and no ATV resistance mutations were observed in these clinical trials. Therefore, COBI shows increased advantages over RTV, such as no activity against HIV, fewer drug-drug interactions and better solubility, which promotes coformulation strategies with less pill burden, better tolerability, and, potentially, higher life-long treatment adherence. Expert commentary: ATV/c regimen supports its useas an effective treatment option for HIV-1 infected patients with increased cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease risk associated with aging. In addition, ATV/c is a new opportunity to expand the strategy of switch to a dual therapy to lower the risk of long-term toxicities as well as the advantage of its cost-benefit.

Persistence, adherence, and all-cause healthcare costs in atazanavir- and darunavir-treated patients with human immunodeficiency virus in a real-world setting.

OBJECTIVES: Atazanavir (ATV) and darunavir (DRV) are protease inhibitors approved for HIV treatment in combination with ritonavir (/r). The objectives of this study were to compare persistence (time to treatment discontinuation/modification), adherence, and healthcare costs among patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) initiating ATV/r or DRV/r. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used commercial and Medicaid administrative insurance claims data. Patients initiating ATV/r or DRV/r from 2006-2013 with continuous enrollment for ≥6 months before and ≥3 months after initiation were included. Patients were followed from initiation until discontinuation/modification (≥30 day gap in ATV or DRV or initiation of a new antiretroviral medication), during which time adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC], with PDC ≥80% or 95% considered adherent) and per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were measured. DRV/r patients were propensity score matched to ATV/r patients at a 1:1 ratio to achieve balance on potentially confounding demographic and clinical factors. Commercial and Medicaid samples were analyzed separately, as were antiretroviral (ART)-naïve and experienced patients. RESULTS: The final samples comprised 2988 commercially-insured and 1158 Medicaid-insured patients. There were no significant differences in hazards of discontinuation/modification between the ATV/r or DRV/r cohorts. With respect to odds of being adherent, the only marginally significant result was comparing odds of achieving PDC ≥80% among ART-naïve Medicaid patients, which favored ATV/r. All other adherence comparisons were not significant. Although ATV/r cohorts tended to have lower PPPM costs, the majority of these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HIV treated with either ATV/r or DRV/r had similar time to treatment discontinuation/modification, adherence, and monthly healthcare costs. Results were similar across the pre-specified sub-groups. These findings are useful not only as an insight into clinical practice, but also as a resource for healthcare providers and payers evaluating treatment options for HIV+ individuals.

Strategies for price reduction of HIV medicines under a monopoly situation in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze Government strategies for reducing prices of antiretroviral medicines for HIV in Brazil. METHODS: Analysis of Ministry of Health purchases of antiretroviral medicines, from 2005 to 2013. Expenditures and costs of the treatment per year were analyzed and compared to international prices of atazanavir. Price reductions were estimated based on the terms of a voluntary license of patent rights and technology transfer in the Partnership for Productive Development Agreement for atazanavir. RESULTS: Atazanavir, a patented medicine, represented a significant share of the expenditures on antiretrovirals purchased from the private sector. Prices in Brazil were higher than international references, and no evidence was found of a relationship between purchase volume and price paid by the Ministry of Health. Concerning the latest strategy to reduce prices, involving local production of the 200 mg capsule, the price reduction was greater than the estimated reduction. As for the 300 mg capsule, the amounts paid in the first two years after the Partnership for Productive Development Agreement were close to the estimated values. Prices in nominal values for both dosage forms remained virtually constant between 2011 (the signature of the Partnership for Productive Development Agreement), 2012 and 2013 (after the establishment of the Partnership). CONCLUSIONS: Price reduction of medicines is complex in limited-competition environments. The use of a Partnership for Productive Development Agreement as a strategy to increase the capacity of local production and to reduce prices raises issues regarding its effectiveness in reducing prices and to overcome patent barriers. Investments in research and development that can stimulate technological accumulation should be considered by the Government to strengthen its bargaining power to negotiate medicines prices under a monopoly situation.

Strategies for price reduction of HIV medicines under a monopoly situation in Brazil / Estratégias de redução de preços de medicamentos para aids em situação de monopólio no Brasil

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To analyze Government strategies for reducing prices of antiretroviral medicines for HIV in Brazil. METHODS Analysis of Ministry of Health purchases of antiretroviral medicines, from 2005 to 2013. Expenditures and costs of the treatment per year were analyzed and compared to international prices of atazanavir. Price reductions were estimated based on the terms of a voluntary license of patent rights and technology transfer in the Partnership for Productive Development Agreement for atazanavir. RESULTS Atazanavir, a patented medicine, represented a significant share of the expenditures on antiretrovirals purchased from the private sector. Prices in Brazil were higher than international references, and no evidence was found of a relationship between purchase volume and price paid by the Ministry of Health. Concerning the latest strategy to reduce prices, involving local production of the 200 mg capsule, the price reduction was greater than the estimated reduction. As for the 300 mg capsule, the amounts paid in the first two years after the Partnership for Productive Development Agreement were close to the estimated values. Prices in nominal values for both dosage forms remained virtually constant between 2011 (the signature of the Partnership for Productive Development Agreement), 2012 and 2013 (after the establishment of the Partnership). CONCLUSIONS Price reduction of medicines is complex in limited-competition environments. The use of a Partnership for Productive Development Agreement as a strategy to increase the capacity of local production and to reduce prices raises issues regarding its effectiveness in reducing prices and to overcome patent barriers. Investments in research and development that can stimulate technological accumulation should be considered by the Government to strengthen its bargaining power to negotiate medicines prices under a monopoly situation.

RESUMO OBJETIVO Analisar as estratégias governamentais para redução de preço de medicamentos antirretrovirais para aids no Brasil. MÉTODOS Realizada análise das compras de medicamentos antirretrovirais pelo Ministério da Saúde, de 2005 a 2013. Foram analisados o gasto e o custo do tratamento por ano e comparados com os preços internacionais para o atazanavir. Foram estimadas as reduções com base no contrato da Parceria para Desenvolvimento Produtivo para obtenção de licença voluntária de patente e transferência de tecnologia do atazanavir. RESULTADOS O atazanavir teve peso expressivo nos gastos com antirretrovirais adquiridos no setor privado. Os preços praticados no Brasil foram mais altos que aqueles de referência internacional e não houve evidências da relação entre volume de compra e preço pago pelo Ministério da Saúde, por ser medicamento patenteado. Em relação à estratégia mais recente para reduzir preços, envolvendo produção local da cápsula de 200 mg, as reduções foram menores do que as estimadas. Quanto à cápsula de 300 mg, os valores pagos nos dois primeiros anos após a Parceria para Desenvolvimento Produtivo foram próximos aos estimados. Os preços em valores nominais mantiveram-se praticamente constantes entre 2011 (assinatura da Parceria para Desenvolvimento Produtivo), 2012 e 2013 (após estabelecida a Parceria). CONCLUSÕES A redução do preço de medicamentos é complexa em ambiente de concorrência limitada. O uso da Parceria para Desenvolvimento Produtivo como método para aumentar a capacidade de produção local e reduzir preços levanta questões em relação à redução efetiva dos preços e ao enfrentamento da barreira patentária. Investimentos em pesquisa e desenvolvimento que possam estimular a acumulação tecnológica devem ser considerados pelo governo para fortalecer seu poder de barganha ao negociar preços de medicamentos em situação de monopólio.