A Prospective Economic Analysis of Early Outcome Data From the Alliance A041202/ CCTG CLC.2 Randomized Phase III Trial Of Bendamustine-Rituximab Compared With Ibrutinib-Based Regimens in Untreated Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: The Alliance A041202/CCTG CLC.2 trial demonstrated superior progression-free survival with ibrutinib-based therapy compared to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis of Canadian patients to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with these therapies. METHODS: Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months. Health state utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D instrument with Canadian tariffs applied to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were applied to resource utilization data (expressed in 2019 US dollars). We examined costs and QALYs associated ibrutinib, ibrutinib with rituximab (IR), and BR therapy. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled; two patients were excluded from the analysis. On-protocol costs (associated with protocol-specified resource use) were higher for patients receiving ibrutinib (mean $189,335; P < 0.0001) and IR (mean $219,908; P < 0.0001) compared to BR (mean $51,345), driven by higher acquisition costs for ibrutinib. Total mean costs (over 2-years) were $192,615 with ibrutinib, $223,761 with IR, and $55,413 with BR (P < 0.0001 for ibrutinib vs. BR and P < 0.0001 for IR vs. BR). QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR; therefore, a formal cost-utility analysis was not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Direct medical costs are higher for patients receiving ibrutinib-based therapies compared to chemoimmunotherapy in frontline chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with the cost of ibrutinib representing a key driver.

Adverse Events and Economic Burden Among Patients Receiving Systemic Treatment for Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Limited published real-world data describe adverse events (AEs) among patients treated for mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL). The aim of this retrospective study was to describe treatment patterns, AEs, and associated healthcare costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had two or more claims coded for MCL diagnosis, the first claim date (07/01/2012-05/31/2017) was the index date. Patients with pre-index MCL diagnosis or systemic treatment, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were excluded. Cohorts by regimen were followed for up to three lines of therapy. RESULTS: Patients (n=395; median age 72 years; 31% female) were observed over a total of 576 lines of therapy, the most common being bendamustine plus rituximab; rituximab monotherapy; R-CHOP; and ibrutinib. The most frequent AEs were hypertension (40.5%), anemia (37.7%), and infection (36.1%). However, hepatotoxicity ($19,645), stroke ($18,893), and renal failure ($9,037) were associated with the highest medical costs per patient per month. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving common systemic treatments for MCL, AEs occurred frequently; some imposed substantial inpatient care costs.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with first-line ibrutinib compared to chemoimmunotherapy treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization and costs of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who received ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1 L). METHODS: Fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) claims data were used to identify adults with a CLL/SLL diagnosis initiating 1 L ibrutinib single agent or CIT between 4 March 2016 and 30 September 2017 (index date). HRU and costs (Medicare spending) were evaluated during 1 L Oncology Care Model (1 L OCM) episodes (the first six months post-index) and over the observed 1 L duration. Patients' baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean monthly cost differences (MMCDs) obtained from ordinary least square regressions were used to compare costs between ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. RESULTS: In the Medicare FFS dataset (ibrutinib: n = 2014; CIT: n = 2050), ibrutinib patients incurred significantly higher monthly pharmacy costs (1 L OCM: MMCD = $4878, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD= $4892, p < .0001) that were fully offset by lower monthly medical costs (1 L OCM: MMCD= -$8289, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$5888, p < .0001), yielding a monthly total healthcare cost reduction (1 L OCM: MMCD=-$3411, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$996, p < .0001) relative to CIT patients. In the MA dataset (ibrutinib: n = 293; CIT: n = 303), ibrutinib was also associated with a monthly total healthcare cost reduction (1 L OCM: MMCD=-$10,459; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$5492). CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare patients with CLL/SLL, 1 L ibrutinib single agent was associated with total monthly cost savings relative to 1 L CIT, driven by lower monthly medical costs that fully offset higher monthly pharmacy costs.

Time to Next Treatment, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Ibrutinib Use Among U.S. Veterans with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is the most common adult leukemia, accounting for ≈ 37% of all leukemias in the United States. Limited real-word evidence is available on the outcomes of ibrutinib use among previously untreated patients in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) population diagnosed with CLL/SLL. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate time to next treatment (TTNT) among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL who initiated ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1L) and 1L ibrutinib versus ibrutinib in later lines (2L+) and (b) compare health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs between the 1L ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. METHODS: Adults with CLL/SLL and claims for 1L single-agent ibrutinib or CIT (index date = first prescription claim date) were included from Veterans Health Administration Data (April 1, 2013-March 31, 2018). A subset of the CIT 1L cohort with evidence of ibrutinib in 2L/3L was defined as the ibrutinib 2L+ cohort. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate TTNT, and generalized linear models were used to determine all-cause per patient per month (PPPM) HRU and costs during 1L among propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts. RESULTS: After PSM, 614 patients were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 1L CIT cohorts, and 149 were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts. The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly longer TTNT compared with each of the 1L CIT and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts (P <0.0001 and P =0.0001, respectively) and was less likely to have a next line of treatment than the CIT 1L cohort (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.42-0.65; P < 0.0001) and the 2L+ ibrutinib cohort (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.22-0.69; P = 0.0012). The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly fewer inpatient visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.28-0.52; P ≤ 0.05) and outpatient visits PPPM (RR =0.72; 95% CI = 0.68-0.77; P ≤ 0.5) compared with the CIT 1L cohort. Additionally, the 1L ibrutinib cohort had $7,308 significantly lower monthly medical costs (95% CI = -$9,892 to -$4,895; P ≤ 0.05) versus the 1L CIT cohort, resulting in comparable monthly total health care cost (medical and pharmacy) between real-world 1L patients treated by ibrutinib and CIT (-$2,160; 95% CI = -$4,840-$347; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL, 1L ibrutinib use was associated with significantly longer TTNT versus that of 1L CIT. Similarly, early treatment with ibrutinib was associated with longer TTNT as compared to ibrutinib use in later lines of therapy. Moreover, 1L ibrutinib was associated with lower HRU and medical costs compared with 1L CIT, completely offsetting the higher pharmacy costs related to 1L ibrutinib treatment. DISCLOSURES: This research was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. The analyses were performed by STATinMED Research. Huang is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs and may own company stock. Sundaram was an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs at the time this study was conducted. Borra and Janjan are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to the study sponsor. Wang, Li, and Shrestha were employees of STATinMED Research at the time this study was conducted.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Adverse Events, Resource Use, and Costs Among Commercially Insured, Younger Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst a changing treatment landscape, real-world evidence on the burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden among treated patients with CLL. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus. Patients at least 18 years old with CLL treatment between November 1, 2013 and May 31, 2018 were identified; index date was first observed CLL treatment. Patients had at least one CLL diagnosis pre-index and a second diagnosis anytime during the study period, at least 1-year pre- and at least 30-day post-index continuous enrollment and no pre-index CLL treatment. Analyses focused on patients receiving one of the four most common regimens observed. Outcomes included treatment patterns, frequency of incident AEs, and healthcare resource use and costs. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear modelling were used to evaluate risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: A total of 1706 patients were included in the study (median [interquartile range] age 58 [55-62] years, 66% male, median Charlson Comorbidity Index 2 [2-3], median follow-up 16 [8-28] months). Common regimens, irrespective of treatment line, were bendamustine-rituximab (B-R, 27%), ibrutinib monotherapy (I, 27%), rituximab monotherapy (R, 19%), and fludarabine combined with cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR, 16%); 59% had at least one incident AE (B-R, 62%; I, 60%; R, 25%; FCR, 79%). Mean total all-cause healthcare cost over follow-up was $13,858 ± 14,626 PPPM. Increased number of AEs was associated with increased odds of hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-3.4) and increased mean cost PPPM (cost ratio = 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the treatment toxicity and associated economic burden among patients with CLL in the USA. As novel therapies are increasingly used, further research examining outcomes will inform the risks, benefits, and value of novel agents to prescribers and patients.

Update on HIV prevention and preexposure prophylaxis.

HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an opportunity for clinicians to curb the 40,000 HIV infections occurring annually in the United States. PrEP is medication used by HIV-negative patients to reduce their risk of acquiring the virus. This article provides a baseline understanding of PrEP indications, prescribing, and monitoring, including a review of previously approved medication and an update on newly approved drugs, including emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF). Sexual and gender minorities are often underrepresented in the literature about PrEP, but clinicians should address risk focused on specific behaviors rather than population-level characteristics. As one of few professions with prescriptive authority, PAs have an obligation to understand and manage PrEP.

Comparative Pricing of Branded Tenofovir Alafenamide-Emtricitabine Relative to Generic Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate-Emtricitabine for HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (F/TAF) was recently approved as a noninferior and potentially safer option than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (F/TDF) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States. Objective: To estimate the greatest possible clinical benefits and economic savings attributable to the improved safety profile of F/TAF and the maximum price payers should be willing to pay for F/TAF over generic F/TDF. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Data Sources: Published literature on F/TDF safety (in persons with and those without HIV) and the cost and quality-of-life effects of fractures and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Target Population: Age-stratified U.S. men who have sex with men (MSM) using PrEP. Time Horizon: Five years. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Preexposure prophylaxis with F/TAF versus F/TDF. Outcome Measures: Fractures averted, cases of ESRD averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and maximum justifiable price for F/TAF compared with generic F/TDF. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Over a 5-year horizon, compared with F/TDF, F/TAF averted 2101 fractures and 25 cases of ESRD for the 123 610 MSM receiving PrEP, with an ICER of more than $7 million per QALY. At a 50% discount for generic F/TDF ($8300 per year) and a societal willingness to pay up to $100 000 per QALY, the maximum fair price for F/TAF was $8670 per year. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Among persons older than 55 years, the ICER for F/TAF remained more than $3 million per QALY and the maximum permissible fair price for F/TAF was $8970 per year. Results were robust to alternative time horizons and PrEP-using population sizes. Limitation: Intermittent use and on-demand PrEP were not considered. Conclusion: In the presence of a generic F/TDF alternative, the improved safety of F/TAF is worth no more than an additional $370 per person per year. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research.

Tenofovir vs lamivudine plus adefovir in chronic hepatitis B: TENOSIMP-B study.

AIM: To demonstrate the non-inferiority (15% non-inferiority limit) of monotherapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs the combination of lamivudine (LAM) plus adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) in the maintenance of virologic response in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and prior failure with LAM. METHODS: This study was a Phase IV prospective, randomized, open, controlled study with 2 parallel groups (TDF and LAM+ADV) of adult patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative CHB, prior failure with LAM, on treatment with LAM+ADV for at least 6 mo, without prior resistance to ADV and with an undetectable viral load at the start of the study, in 14 Spanish hospitals. The follow-up time for each patient was 48 wk after randomization, with quarterly visits in which the viral load, biochemical and serological parameters, adverse effects, adherence to treatment and consumption of hospital resources were analysed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were evaluated [median age: 55.4 years (30.2-75.2); 84.8% male], including 22 patients with TDF and 24 with LAM+ADV. During study development, hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA) remained undetectable, all patients remained HBeAg negative, and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) values at the end of the study were similar in the 2 groups (25.1 ± 7.65, TDF vs 24.22 ± 8.38, LAM+ADV, P = 0.646). No significant changes were observed in creatinine or serum phosphorus values in either group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were noted in the identification of adverse effects (AEs) (53.8%, TDF vs 37.5%, LAM+ADV, P = 0.170), and none of the AEs which occurred were serious. Treatment adherence was 95.5% and 83.3% in the TDF and the LAM+ADV groups, respectively (P = 0.488). The costs associated with hospital resource consumption were significantly lower with the TDF treatment than the LAM+ADV treatment (€4943 ± 1059 vs €5811 ± 1538, respectively, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TDF monotherapy proved to be safe and not inferior to the LAM+ADV combination therapy in maintaining virologic response in patients with CHB and previous LAM failure. In addition, the use of TDF generated a significant savings in hospital costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for treatment of chronic hepatitis B in China.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is newly available for treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients in China. To date, no study has been conducted to examine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of TDF versus four oral nucleos(t)ide analogs [lamivudine (LAM), adefovir (ADV), telbivudine (LdT), and entecavir (ETV)] and from a pharmacoeconomic perspective to assess current drug pricing for TDF. METHODS: Based on Chinese healthcare perspectives, a Markov model was applied to simulate the lifetime (40-year time span) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for five different monotherapy strategies. Two kinds of rescue combination strategies (base-case: LAM + ADV then ETV + ADV; alternative: directly using ETV + ADV) were separately considered for treatment of patients refractory to monotherapy. Model parameters (including disease transition, cost, and utility) were obtained from previous Chinese population studies. Both branded and generic drugs were separately analyzed. Study model uncertainties were assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Two-way sensitivity analysis was used to explore uncertainties between efficacy and price of TDF. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the lowest lifetime cost and the best cost-effectiveness ratio were obtained by ETV, which was considered the reference treatment. LAM, ADV, and LdT treatments had significantly greater costs and lower efficacies. Compared to ETV, TDF was more effective but also more expensive. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of TDF versus ETV were much higher than the willing-to-pay threshold of $20,466 US dollars (USD) per QALY gained (3 × gross domestic product per capita of China, 2014). TDF would be the most cost-effective strategy if the annual cost did not exceed $2260 USD and $1600 USD for branded and generic drugs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients, ETV is still the most cost-effective strategy over TDF and other nucleos(t)ide analogs, with a threshold of $20,466 USD/QALY gained.

Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) as the successor of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF).

Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) can be considered a new prodrug of tenofovir (TFV), as successor of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). It is in vivo as potent against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) at a 30-fold lower dose (10mg) than TDF (300mg). TAF has been approved in November 2015 (in the US and EU), as a single-tablet regimen (STR) containing 150mg elvitegravir (E), 150mg cobicistat (C), 200mg emtricitabine [(-)FTC] (F) and 10mg TAF, marketed as Genvoya®, on 01 March 2016 in the US as an STR containing 25mg rilpivirine (R), 200mg F and 25mg TAF, marketed as Odefsey®, and on 4 April 2016 in the US, as an STR containing 200mg F and 25mg TAF, marketed as Descovy®, for the treatment of HIV infections. STR combinations containing TAF and emtricitabine could be paired with a range of third agents, for example, darunavir and cobicistat. TAF has a much lower risk of kidney toxicity or bone density changes than TDF, and also offers long-term potential in the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of HIV infections. TAF is specifically accumulated in lymphatic tissue, and in the liver, and hence also holds great potential for the treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections. Akin to TDF, TAF is converted intracellularly to TFV. Its active diphosphate metabolite (TFVpp) is targeted at the RNA-dependent DNA polymerase (reverse transcriptase) of either HIV or HBV.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of lamivudine plus adefovir combination treatment and nucleos(t)ide analog monotherapies in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Lamivudine (LAM) plus adefovir (ADV) combination therapy is clinically efficacious for treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients in China, but no pharmacoeconomic evaluations of this strategy are available. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of LAM plus ADV combination treatment compared with five other nucleos(t)ide analog monotherapies (LAM, ADV, telbivudine [TBV], entecavir [ETV], and tenofovir [TDF]). METHODS: To simulate the lifetime (40-year time span) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for different therapy options, a Markov model that included five initial monotherapies and LAM plus ADV combination as an initial treatment was developed. Two kinds of rescue combination strategies (base-case: LAM + ADV then ETV + ADV; alternative: direct use of ETV + ADV) were considered separately for treating patients refractory to initial therapy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore model uncertainties. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, ETV had the lowest lifetime cost and served as the reference therapy. Compared to the reference, LAM, ADV, and TBV had higher costs and lower efficacy, and were completely dominated by ETV. LAM plus ADV combination therapy or TDF was more efficacious than ETV, but also more expensive. Although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of combination therapy or TDF were both higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,466/QALY gained for the reference treatment, in an alternative scenario analysis LAM plus ADV combination therapy would be the preferable treatment option. CONCLUSION: ETV and LAM plus ADV combination therapy are both cost-effective strategies for treating Chinese CHB patients.

Cost-effectiveness of Lamivudine, Telbivudine, Adefovir Dipivoxil and Entecavir on decompensated hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lamivudine (LMV), telbivudine (LdT), adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) and entecavir (ETV) on decompensated hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 1332 patients with decompensated hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis were randomly assigned into 5 groups with different clinical treatment including LMV treatment, LdT treatment, ADV treatment, LMV+ADV treatment and ETV treatment. And then the liver function, Child-Pugh scores, sero-conversion of HBeAg/HBeAb, polymerase gene mutations, cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness and side effects were investigated and further analyzed. RESULTS: LMV, ADV, LdT, LMV+ADV and ETV were all effective on decreasing Child-Pugh scores and conversing negatively hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and HBeAg, whereas LMV+ADV and ETV more effective than LMV, ADV and LdT. HBV DNA polymerase genotypic mutations were rare in the 5 groups. The less mutation rate was found in the LMV+ADV and ETV group than in the LMV, ADV and LdT group. Compared to the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ETV was the optimal selection, LMV+ADV was the alternative selection and LMV was the cheapest option. The side effects of the 5 plans were all rare and could be controlled. CONCLUSIONS: LMV, ADV, LdT, LMV+ADV and ETV were all effective on treatment of decompensated hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis whereas ETV and LMV+ADV were recommended.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lamivudine, telbivudine, and entecavir in treatment of chronic hepatitis B with adefovir dipivoxil resistance.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of lamivudine (LMV), telbivudine (LdT), and entecavir (ETV) in treatment of chronic hepatitis B with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) resistance. Two hundred and fifty-two patients were recruited and screened for resistance to ADV and randomly assigned into three groups: LMV + ADV, LdT + ADV, and ETV + ADV. The ratio of biochemical response, virological response, seroconversion of hepatitis Be antigen (HBeAg)/hepatitis Be antibody (HBeAb), viral breakthrough, and the cost and effectiveness of treatments were analyzed. A comparison of the results of the ratio of biochemical response, virological response and seroconversion of HBeAg/HBeAb, showed no statistical difference between the three groups, with the economic cost of LMV + ADV the lowest, LdT + ADV the middle, and ETV + ADV the highest. The side effects of the three plans are all rare and tolerable. LMV + ADV is the optimal rescue strategy, and LdT + ADV the alternative selection in the economically less developed regions, while ETV + ADV was used in the economically developed regions.

HIV-serodiscordant couples desiring a child: 'treatment as prevention,' preexposure prophylaxis, or medically assisted procreation?

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the residual risk of HIV transmission, cost, and cost-effectiveness of various strategies that can help fertile HIV-uninfected female/HIV-1-infected male on combination antiretroviral therapy with plasma HIV RNA <50 copies/mL couples to have a child: (1) unprotected sexual intercourse (treatment as prevention); (2) treatment as prevention limited to fertile days (targeting fertile days); (3) treatment as prevention with preexposure prophylaxis (tenofovir/emtricitabine); (4) treatment as prevention and preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days; or (5) medically assisted procreation (MAP). STUDY DESIGN: This was a model-based, cost-effectiveness analysis performed from a French societal perspective. Input parameters derived from international literature included: 85% probability of live births in different strategies, 0.0083%/mo HIV transmission risk with unprotected vaginal intercourse, 1% HIV mother-to-child transmission rate, and 4.4% birth defect risk related to combination antiretroviral therapy when the mother is infected at conception. Targeting fertile days and preexposure prophylaxis were estimated to decrease the risk of HIV transmission by 80% and 67%, respectively, and by 93.4% for preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days (the relative risk of transmission considering the combination of both strategies assuming to be (1-80%)*(1-67%) = 16.6% in basecase). Tenofovir/emtricitabine monthly cost was set at €540. RESULTS: The HIV transmission risk was highest with treatment as prevention and lowest for MAP (5.4 and 0.0 HIV-infected women/10,000 pregnancies, respectively). Targeting fertile days was more effective than preexposure prophylaxis (0.9 vs 1.8) and associated with lowest costs. Preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days was more effective than targeting fertile days (0.3 vs 0.9) with a cost-effectiveness ratio of €1,130,000/life year saved; MAP cost-effectiveness ratio when compared with preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days was €3,600,000/life year saved. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Targeting fertile days is associated with a low risk of HIV transmission in fertile HIV-uninfected female/male with controlled HIV-1 infection couples. The risk is lower with preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days, or MAP, but these strategies are associated with unfavorable cost-effectiveness ratios under their current costs.

Limited hepatitis B immunoglobulin with potent nucleos(t)ide analogue is a cost-effective prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) includes lifelong hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and oral antiviral agent(s). In the presence of high-genetic-barrier nucleos(t)ide analogues, the need for lifelong HBIG is questioned. We evaluated the safety and cost-effectiveness of a limited HBIG course. METHODS: OLT from 2006 to 2013 were reviewed. Patients with pre-OLT hepatitis B virus surface antigen who received HBV prophylaxis with 2 HBIG doses (anhepatic and first post-operative day; 10,000 units/dose) and potent nucleos(t)ide analogues were included. The primary end point was HBV recurrence (HBV-DNA detection). RESULTS: Thirteen patients (primary transplants) were included, median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 18, and there was no fulminant failure; HBV-DNA was detected in 4 patients at OLT. After OLT, 10 patients received entecavir and/or tenofovir. Median follow-up was 23 months. One recurrence occurred (7.7%) at month 13 (HBV-DNA: 14 IU/mL); the graft maintained excellent function. This minimal viremic expression is related to hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence with neoplastic replication carrying integrated HBV-DNA; thus, there is no defined HBV viral recurrence. No graft loss or patient death was related to HBV recurrence. The 1-year patient and graft survival rate was 84.6%. Cost-savings in the first year was $178,100 per patient when compared with Food and Drug Administration-approved HBIG dosing. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of potent oral nucleos(t)ide analogues, a limited HBIG course appears to be cost-effective in preventing HBV recurrence.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis accessibility research and evaluation (PrEPARE Study).

Tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) has demonstrated effectiveness as HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), but it is not commonly prescribed. Our study was designed to determine the barriers preventing utilization of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM), the group at greatest risk for HIV infection in the United States. A population-based sample of MSM presenting for HIV testing at 'Early Test' HIV testing and counseling sites in San Diego, California were offered PrEP and education about potential efficacy. Eligible individuals reported having unprotected sex within the past 12 months and who tested negative for HIV were offered study participation. Despite offering procedures for evaluation and prescription for PrEP to 416 eligible subjects, less than 0.5 % of participants received the drug. Surveys collected from 54 of those who declined study participation revealed multiple barriers to PrEP among MSM including cost, low perceived risk of infection and concerns about taking a daily medication and potential long-term side effects. Efforts should be made to address these barriers, especially lowering the cost of TDF-FTC, education about PrEP side effects and awareness of HIV risks.

ACOG Committee Opinion no 595: Committee on Gynecologic Practice: Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus.

Preexposure prophylaxis is defined as the administration of antiretroviral medications to individuals who are not infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and are at the highest risk of acquiring HIV infection. In combination with other proven HIV-prevention methods, preexposure prophylaxis may be a useful tool for women at the highest risk of HIV acquisition. Obstetrician-gynecologists involved in the care of women using preexposure prophylaxis must reinforce adherence to daily medication. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidance for preexposure prophylaxis is likely to evolve in the coming years, and obstetrician-gynecologists should remain aware of new developments in this area. Risk reduction for all women at risk of HIV infection should include counseling about testing, safe-sex practices (including condom use), and other behavioral interventions.