A meta-analysis comparing 48-week treatment outcomes of single and multi-tablet antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes with single tablet regimens (STR) versus multi-tablet regimens (MTR) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment using published data. DESIGN: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of literature on approved and investigational HIV regimens. METHODS: The research followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Single or un-blinded studies reporting a direct comparison between STR and MTR were eligible for the meta-analysis. Double-blinded studies were excluded due to lack of difference in pill burden between cohorts. The key outcomes of interest included: adherence rates/proportion meeting target, efficacy, safety/tolerability, non-clinical and economic outcomes. RESULTS: After screening 63 full-text articles and posters, 14 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The analysis showed that patients taking STR had improved outcomes over those taking MTR. Patients were significantly more adherent regardless of daily dosing frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 1.96, p < 0.001) and were more likely to achieve virological suppression (relative risk [RR]: 1.05, p = 0.002). There was a trend toward a lower discontinuation risk in the STR cohort, together with reported higher therapy satisfaction, better symptom control, improved health status, reduced healthcare resource utilization and demonstrated cost-effectiveness compared to MTR. There were no differences in CD4 cell count increase (at 48 weeks) or safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study confirm previously reported preliminary findings of the advantages of STR over MTR for HIV treatment in adherence, therapy continuation, viral suppression, tolerability, quality of life improvement, cost-effectiveness and healthcare resource utilization.

Optimizing choice of oral interferon-free treatment for genotype 1 hepatitis C virus using testing for NS5A resistance: a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Patients with genotype-1 hepatitis C virus infection who have failed to respond to standard therapy or who relapse following treatment may be considered for an interferon-free regimen incorporating a nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitor. Sustained virologic response (SVR) with these regimens is typically >90%, but this is reduced in patients with NS5A resistance. European Association for Study of the Liver guidelines recommend simeprevir + sofosbuvir ± ribavirin (SMV+SOF±R) for re-treating patients failing an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen. An alternative strategy would be to test for NS5A resistance prior to treatment, with therapy optimized based on the results. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate disease progression for treatment-experienced genotype 1 patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis. Targeted treatment with either SMV+SOF±R or sofosbuvir + ledipasvir ± ribavirin (SOF+LDV±R) based on pretreatment NS5A resistance testing was compared to routine SOF+LDV±R without testing. Treatment duration was 12 or 24 weeks for patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F3/F4). SVR data for the treatment options were based on the results of published clinical trials. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. RESULTS: Optimized treatment using NS5A resistance testing yielded 0.163 additional QALYs and increased costs of €2,789 per patient versus no testing. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €17,078/QALY. Sensitivity analysis identified the SVR attributable to each of the treatment regimens as the most sensitive determinant of ICER (range: €10,055/QALY-€43,501/QALY across plausible range). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY, the probability that NS5A-directed treatment will be cost-effective is 81.4%. CONCLUSION: Optimizing therapy with either SMV+SOF±R or SOF+LDV±R based on pretreatment NS5A resistance testing was cost-effective from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service, in treatment-experienced patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis.

Indirect comparison of the antiviral efficacy of peginterferon alpha 2a plus ribavirin used with or without simeprevir in genotype 4 hepatitis C virus infection, where common comparator study arms are lacking: a special application of the matching adjusted indirect comparison methodology.

BACKGROUND: The need to assess relative efficacy in the absence of comparative clinical trials is a problem that is often encountered in economic modeling. The use of matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) in this situation has been suggested. We present the results of a MAIC used to evaluate the incremental benefit offered by adding simeprevir (SMV) to standard therapy in the treatment of patients infected with genotype 4 hepatitis C virus (HCV). METHODS: Individual patient data for a single arm study evaluating the use of SMV with peginterferon alfa 2a + ribavirin (PR) in genotype 4 HCV were available (RESTORE study). A systematic literature review was used to identify studies of PR alone used in the same patient group. By applying the inclusion criteria for each study in turn to the RESTORE dataset and then applying the published MAIC covariate matching algorithm, a series of pseudosamples from RESTORE were generated. After assessment of the matching outcomes, the best matched comparisons were used to derive estimates of efficacy for SMV + PR in patients equivalent to those participating in the PR trial. RESULTS: Five potential comparator studies were identified. After applying the matching process, two emerged as offering the greatest equivalence with the generated RESTORE pseudosamples and were used to estimate SMV + PR efficacy, expressed as the percentage of patients achieving sustained viral response (SVR). In one comparison, SVR in the SMV + PR group was 85% versus 63% for PR alone. In the second comparison, the corresponding SVRs were 77% and 44% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After matching for varying baseline characteristics, both comparisons of RESTORE versus studies of PR alone yielded a benefit for SMV + PR vs PR alone in genotype 4 HCV-infected patients. The incremental gain in SVR associated with use of SMV ranged from 22% to 33%. In the absence of direct comparative studies, the MAIC gives a better perspective than simple comparison of absolute SVR from individual studies.

Health-related quality of life in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with long-acting, injectable risperidone.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of treatment with long-acting, injectable risperidone versus placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with schizophrenia. Results are discussed in the context of HRQoL in the general U.S. population. METHOD: Patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia entered a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After screening, previous antipsychotics were discontinued, and oral risperidone was titrated up to a dose of 4 mg/day over 1 week. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive placebo [N = 92] or long-acting risperidone (25 [N = 93], 50 [N = 97], or 75 mg [N = 87] every 2 weeks) for 12 weeks. HRQoL was measured using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-item questionnaire (SF-36). RESULTS: At week 12, patients receiving long-acting risperidone had improved significantly (p <.05) in 5 domains of the SF-36 (bodily pain, general health, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health) compared with patients receiving placebo. The effect was greatest for the 25-mg group, with significant improvement versus placebo in 6 domains (p <.05). At baseline, all SF-36 domain scores except bodily pain were significantly lower (p <.05) than normal values in all groups. With placebo, scores in all 8 domains remained below normal values after 12 weeks, while patients receiving long-acting risperidone showed improvement in HRQoL toward normal levels, with clinically meaningful improvements in all mental-health domains. In the 25-mg group, scores in 7 domains were not statistically different from normal values after 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting, injectable risperidone improved HRQoL toward normal levels. After 12 weeks, HRQoL of patients receiving 25 mg was not significantly different from normal.