Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Dolutegravir/Abacavir/Lamivudine Single-Tablet Regimen in a Real-Life Cohort of HIV-1 Adult Infected Patients.

Background: Real-life data on single-tablet regimen (STR) dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) is scarce, and concerns about DTG neuropsychiatric adverse events (NP-AEs) have recently arisen. Objective: To explore the effectiveness and safety, in particular NP-AEs, of DTG/ABC/3TC in a cohort of HIV-1 adult infected patients. Pill burden, adherence to this STR, and the impact of switching on costs were also evaluated. Methods: This was an observational, retrospective study. The study population included antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive and treatment-experienced (TE) patients who started DTG/ABC/3TC between February 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016. Effectiveness and safety were analyzed at week 48 (W48) by intention-to-treat analysis. The Cox regression model was used to investigate predictors of DTG/ABC/3TC discontinuation. Results: A total of 253 patients were included (44 ART naïve, 209 TE). At W48, the proportion of patients with virological suppression was 72.7% (95% CI = 58.4-87.0) in ART-naive patients, 85.6% (95% CI = 80.3-90.9) in previously suppressed TE patients, and 86.4% (95% CI = 65.1-97.1) in previously not suppressed TE patients. The rate of protocol-defined virological failure was 4.3%. The incidence of AEs was higher in the subgroup of ART-naive patients (56.1% vs 39.0%), with a rate of interruptions for this reason of 13.6% and 7.6%, respectively. The incidence of NP-AEs was 20.6%, with 3.9% of patients requiring discontinuation. Patients who had switched from a raltegravir-containing regimen discontinued DTG/ABC/3TC because of AEs more frequently (relative risk = 2.83; 95% CI = 1.04-7.72; P = 0.041) in the multivariate analysis. After switching to DTG/ABC/3TC, the median pill burden was reduced from 3 to 1 and the proportion of patients with an adherence <90%, from 20.1% to 12.0%. The annual per-patient ART costs increased by €48 (0.6% increase). Conclusion and Relevance: DTG/ABC/3TC is an effective strategy as first-line and switching ART. Our data suggest a worse tolerance in ART-naive patients, although the rate of discontinuation resulting from NP-AEs was relatively low. In the short-term, the adherence was slightly improved without significant changes in costs.

De-simplifying single-tablet antiretroviral treatments: uptake, risks and cost savings.

OBJECTIVES: As more HIV-positive individuals receive antiretroviral therapy (ART), payers are seeking options for covering these increased and sustained drug costs. Strategic use of available generic antiretroviral (ARV) formulations may be feasible. De-simplifying a single-tablet co-formulation (STF) into two or more tablets using both brand and generic drugs has been proposed. We determine if voluntary de-simplification of one STF could be utilized as a cost-saving strategy. We report on the challenges, uptake, outcomes and cost savings of this initiative. METHODS: Patients stable on the most commonly used STF (Triumeq® ) were offered the option of remaining on Triumeq® or switching to generic abacavir/lamivudine and Tivicay® between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2018; those starting ART consisting of abacavir/lamivudine/doulutegravir in the same period were offered the option of starting Triumeq® or generic abacavir/laminvudine and Tivicay® . No incentives were provided. We examined the acceptance/decline rates, patient satisfaction, health care outcomes and annual cost savings. RESULTS: Of 626 patients receiving Triumeq® , 321 were approached; 177 (55.1%) agreed to de-simplify. Of patients initiating ART, 62.7% chose the generic co-formulation. Patients switching to or starting on the generic co-formulation were more likely to be male, > 45 years old, Caucasian, men who have sex with men (MSM) and more HIV-experienced, and to have more comorbidities (all P < 0.05). Preference for STF was cited for declining de-simplification. No concern about generic ARVs was expressed. The rate of viral load > 500 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL after baseline was 2.7% in switched patients compared with 7.0% in those declining to switch. No de novo resistance occurred. A saving of Cdn$1 319 686 was achieved in the first year. CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on altruism, while respecting patient autonomy, achieved de-simplification in > 50% of patients approached, and generated immediate cost savings with no increased risk of adverse events, viral breakthrough or resistance.

Patient perspectives on de-simplifying their single-tablet co-formulated antiretroviral therapy for societal cost savings.

OBJECTIVES: The incremental costs of expanding antiretroviral (ARV) drug treatment to all HIV-infected patients are substantial, so cost-saving initiatives are important. Our objectives were to determine the acceptability and financial impact of de-simplifying (i.e. switching) more expensive single-tablet formulations (STFs) to less expensive generic-based multi-tablet components. We determined physician and patient perceptions and acceptance of STF de-simplification within the context of a publicly funded ARV budget. METHODS: Programme costs were calculated for patients on ARVs followed at the Southern Alberta Clinic, Canada during 2016 (Cdn$). We focused on patients receiving Triumeq® and determined the savings if patients de-simplified to eligible generic co-formulations. We surveyed all prescribing physicians and a convenience sample of patients taking Triumeq® to see if, for budgetary purposes, they felt that de-simplification would be acceptable. RESULTS: Of 1780 patients receiving ARVs, 62% (n = 1038) were on STF; 58% (n = 607) of patients on STF were on Triumeq®. The total annual cost of ARVs was $26 222 760. The cost for Triumeq® was $8 292 600. If every patient on Triumeq® switched to generic abacavir/lamivudine and Tivicay® (dolutegravir), total costs would decrease by $4 325 040. All physicians (n = 13) felt that de-simplifying could be safely achieved. Forty-eight per cent of 221 patients surveyed were agreeable to de-simplifying for altruistic reasons, 27% said no, and 25% said maybe. CONCLUSIONS: De-simplifying Triumeq® generates large cost savings. Additional savings could be achieved by de-simplifying other STFs. Both physicians and patients agreed that selective de-simplification was acceptable; however, it may not be acceptable to every patient. Monitoring the medical and cost impacts of de-simplification strategies seems warranted.

The Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of 2-Drug Dolutegravir-Lamivudine Regimens for the Treatment of HIV Infection in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recommended human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment regimens in the United States contain 3 antiretroviral agents, costing >$30 000/person/year. Pilot studies are evaluating the efficacy of dual therapy with dolutegravir (DTG) and lamivudine (3TC). We examined the potential cost-effectiveness and budget impact of DTG + 3TC regimens in the United States. METHODS: Using a mathematical model, we projected the clinical and economic outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive patients under 4 strategies: (1) no ART (for modeling comparison); (2) 2-drug: initial regimen of DTG + 3TC; (3) induction-maintenance: 48-week induction regimen of 3 drugs (DTG/abacavir [ABC]/3TC), followed by DTG + 3TC maintenance if virologically suppressed; and (4) standard of care: 3-drug regimen of DTG/ABC/3TC. Strategy-dependent model inputs, varied widely in sensitivity analyses, included 48-week virologic suppression (88%-93%), subsequent virologic failure (0.1%-0.6%/month), and Medicaid-discounted ART costs ($15 200-$39 600/year). A strategy was considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <$100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: The 3 ART strategies had the same 5-year survival rates (90%). The ICER was $22 500/QALY for induction-maintenance and >$500 000/QALY for standard of care. Two-drug was the preferred strategy only when DTG + 3TC 48-week virologic suppression rate exceeded 90%. With 50% uptake of either induction-maintenance or 2-drug for ART-naive patients, cost savings totaled $550 million and $800 million, respectively, within 5 years; savings reached >$3 billion if 25% of currently suppressed patients were switched to DTG + 3TC maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Should DTG + 3TC demonstrate high rates of virologic suppression, this regimen will be cost-effective and would save >$500 million in ART costs in the United States over 5 years.

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.

Lamivudine compared with newer antivirals for prophylaxis of hepatitis B core antibody positive livers: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

There is concern over the development of de novo hepatitis B in patients receiving liver transplants from hepatitis B surface antigen negative, hepatitis B core antibody positive donors. Current practice is to place such patients on indefinite lamivudine prophylaxis; however, there is a small risk of breakthrough infection and newer antivirals for hepatitis B are available. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of lamivudine compared with the newer agents, tenofovir and entecavir, in the prophylaxis setting using a Markov model. Three strategies were examined which consisted of either lamivudine or entecavir monoprophylaxis with tenofovir add-on therapy after breakthrough or tenofovir monoprophylaxis with emtricitabine add-on therapy after breakthrough. In the base case scenario, lamivudine was the most cost-effective option at a threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year and this remained robust despite parameter uncertainty. Tenofovir had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3 540 194.77 while other strategies were superior to entecavir therapy. Until drug costs decrease, lamivudine remains the most cost-effective option for hepatitis B prophylaxis in the liver transplant setting.

Management of the HBV reactivation in isolated HBcAb positive patients affected with Non Hodgkin Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Occult HBV infection (OBI) is defined by the persistence of HBV in the liver without serum HBsAg and HBVDNA. It represents a life-threatening event during immunosuppressive chemotherapies. An OBI occurs in approximately 18% of HBcAb + patients. International guidelines suggest surveillance for HBV markers in immunosuppressed patients. In Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), the prevalence of OBI reactivation remains to be established. METHODS: In order to determine the prevalence of occult HBV reactivation in a large cohort of patients during chemotherapy for NHL, we analysed 498 NHL patients in a centre of Southern Italy. We evaluated HBV markers, NHL type, treatment type and occurrence of HBV reactivation. RESULTS: Forty % of patients were treated with monoclonal antibodies and 60.3% without. Ninety-six patients were HBcAb+, HBsAg-. HBV reactivation occurred in ten subjects of this subgroup. All of them were successfully treated with Lamivudine. None of the patients experienced liver-related death. The prevalence of OBI reactivation was of 10.42% in HBcAb + HBsAb- patients. This event occurred in 50% of patients treated with mild immunosuppressive therapies. Each reactivation was treated with Lamivudine. DISCUSSION: This report suggests that a strict surveillance is important and cost-effective in HBcAb + HBsAg- NHL patients treated with mild immunosuppressive therapies, in order to detect an occult HBV reactivation.

A cost-utility analysis of drug treatments in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Only lamivudine has been included for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the National List of Essential Drugs (NLED), a pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. There have also been no economic evaluation studies of CHB drug treatments conducted in Thailand yet. In order to fill this gap in policy research, the objective of this study was to compare the cost-utility of each drug therapy (Figure 1) with palliative care in patients with HBeAg-positive CHB. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis using an economic evaluation model was performed to compare each drug treatment for HBeAg-positive CHB patients. A Markov model was used to estimate the relevant costs and health outcomes during a lifetime horizon based on a societal perspective. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs were included, and health outcomes were denoted in life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The results were presented as an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) in Thai baht (THB) per LY or QALY gained. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to investigate the effects of model parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: The ICER values of providing generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir when drug resistance occurred, generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir based on the road map guideline, and tenofovir monotherapy were -14,000 (USD -467), -8,000 (USD -267) , and -5,000 (USD -167) THB per QALY gained, respectively. However, when taking into account all parameter uncertainties in the model, providing generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir when drug resistance occurred (78% and 75%) and tenofovir monotherapy (18% and 24%) would yield higher probabilities of being cost-effective at the societal willingness to pay thresholds of 100,000 (USD 3,333) and 300,000 (USD 10,000) THB per QALY gained in Thailand, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the policy recommendations from this study, the Thai government decided to include tenofovir into the NLED in addition to generic lamivudine which is already on the list. Moreover, the results have shown that the preferred treatment regimen involves using generic lamivudine as the first-line drug with tenofovir added if drug resistance occurs in HBeAg-positive CHB patients.

Legal, ethical, and economic implications of breaking down once-daily fixed-dose antiretroviral combinations into their single components for cost reduction.

The availability of generic lamivudine in the context of the current economic crisis has raised a new issue in some European countries: breaking up the once-daily fixed-dose antiretroviral combinations (FDAC) of efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine, tenofovir/emtricitabine, or abacavir/lamivudine, in order to administer their components separately, thereby allowing the use of generic lamivudine instead of branded emtricitabine or lamivudine. The legal, ethical, and economic implications of this potential strategy are reviewed, particularly in those patients receiving a once-daily single-tablet regimen. An unfamiliar change in antiretroviral treatment from a successful patient-friendly FDAC into a more complex regimen including separately the components to allow the substitution of one (or some) of them for generic surrogates (in the absence of a generic bioequivalent FDAC) could be discriminatory because it does not guarantee access to equal excellence in healthcare to all citizens. Furthermore, it could violate the principle of non-maleficence by potentially causing harm both at the individual level (hindering adherence and favouring treatment failure and resistance), and at the community level (hampering control of disease transmission and transmission of HIV-1 resistance). Replacing a FDAC with the individual components of that combination should only be permitted when the substituting medication has the same qualitative and quantitative composition of active ingredients, pharmaceutical form, method of administration, dosage and presentation as the medication being replaced, and a randomized study has demonstrated its non-inferiority. Finally, a strict pharma-economic study supporting this change, comparing the effectiveness and the cost of a specific intervention with the best available alternative, should be undertaken before its potential implementation.

Health care resource utilization and costs for treatment-experienced people with HIV switching or restarting antiretroviral regimens since 2018.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with treatment-experienced people with HIV (PWH) switching treatment regimens. OBJECTIVE: To describe HCRU and cost during lines of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for treatment-experienced PWH switching to or restarting guideline-recommended, integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based multitablet regimens and single-tablet regimens. METHODS: This retrospective claims study used data from Optum Research Database (January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020) to identify lines of therapy (LOTs) for treatment-experienced adults who switched to or restarted INSTI-based regimens between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. The first LOT during the study period was included in the analysis. We examined all-cause HCRU and costs and HIV-related HCRU and combined costs to the health plan and direct patient costs by site of service and compared between INSTI-based regimens: bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) (single tablet) vs dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) (single tablet), dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (DTG+FTC/TAF) (multitablet), and dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DTG+FTC/TDF) (multitablet). Analysis of HCRU by site of service was conducted following inverse probability treatment weighting. Multivariable regression was conducted using a generalized linear model with stepwise covariate selection to estimate HIV-related medical costs and control for remaining differences after inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: 4,251 PWH were identified: B/F/TAF (n = 2,727; 64.2%), DTG/ABC/3TC (n = 898; 21.1%), DTG+FTC/TAF (n = 539; 12.7%), and DTG+FTC/TDF (n = 87; 2.1%). PWH treated with DTG+FTC/TAF had a significantly higher mean of all-cause ambulatory visits than PWH treated with B/F/TAF (1.8 vs 1.6, P < 0.001). A significantly smaller proportion of PWH treated with DTG/ABC/3TC had an all-cause ambulatory visit vs PWH treated with B/F/TAF (90.6% vs 93.9%, P < 0.001). All-cause total costs were not significantly different between regimens. Mean (SD) medical HIV-related costs per month during the LOT were not significantly different between B/F/TAF $699 (3,602), DTG/ABC/3TC $770 (3,469), DTG+FTC/TAF $817 (3,128), and DTG+FTC/TDF $3,570 (17,691). After further controlling for unbalanced measures, HIV-related medical costs during the LOT were higher (20%) but did not reach statistical significance for DTG/ABC/3TC (cost ratio = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.851-1.694; P = 0.299), 49% higher for DTG+FTC/TAF (cost ratio = 1.489, 95% CI = 1.018-2.179; P = 0.040), and almost 11 times greater for DTG+FTC/TDF (cost ratio = 10.759, 95% CI = 2.182-53.048; P = 0.004) compared with B/F/TAF. CONCLUSIONS: HIV-related medical costs during the LOT were lowest for PWH treated with INSTI-based single-tablet regimens. Simplifying treatment regimens may help PWH maintain lower health care costs.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of combination antiretroviral therapy for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: To model the cost-effectiveness in Uganda of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) to prevent mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of ART was evaluated on the assumption that ART reduces the risk of an HIV-positive pregnant woman transmitting HIV to her baby from 40% (when the woman is left untreated) to 25.8%, 17.4% and 3.8%, respectively, when the woman is given: (i) single-dose nevirapine (at an estimated total drug cost of 0.06 United States dollars [US$]); (ii) dual therapy with zidovudine and lamivudine for 7 weeks (at a total drug cost of US$ 15.63); or (iii) ART for 18 months (at a total annual cost of US$ 469.77). Lifetime ART (US$ 6883), recommended for pregnant women with < 350 CD4+ T lymphocytes per mm(3), was assumed to give the same reduction in transmission risk in each subsequent pregnancy. FINDINGS: Compared with single-dose nevirapine, dual therapy and no therapy, 18 months of ART averted 5.21, 3.22 and 8.58 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), respectively, at a cost of US$ 46, US$ 99 and US$ 34 per DALY averted. The corresponding figures for lifetime ART are, respectively, 19.20, 11.87 and 31.60 DALYs averted, at a cost of US$ 205, US$ 354 and US$ 172 per DALY averted. CONCLUSION: In Uganda, ART appears highly cost-effective for the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission, even if continued over the patients' lifetimes. Given the additional public health benefits of ART, efforts to ensure that all HIV-positive pregnant women have access to lifelong ART should be intensified.

Antenatal lamivudine to reduce perinatal hepatitis B transmission: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether administration of lamivudine to pregnant women with chronic hepatitis B in the third trimester is a cost-effective strategy in preventing perinatal transmission. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a decision analysis model to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 management strategies for chronic hepatitis B in pregnancy: (1) expectant management or (2) lamivudine administration in the third trimester. We assumed that lamivudine reduced perinatal transmission by 62%. RESULTS: Our Markov model demonstrated that lamivudine administration is the dominant strategy. For every 1000 infected pregnant women treated with lamivudine, $337,000 is saved and 314 quality-adjusted life-years are gained. For every 1000 pregnancies with maternal hepatitis B, lamivudine prevents 21 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and 5 liver transplants in the offspring. The model remained robust in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Antenatal lamivudine administration to pregnant patients with hepatitis B is cost-effective, and frequently cost-saving, under a wide range of circumstances.

Economic analysis between entecavir and lamivudine for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Tremendous healthcare resources have been spent on the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and its related complications. Therefore, a proper evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy is vital in aid of decision-making. The aim of the present study was to examine the long-term economic and clinical influence if lamivudine was replaced by entecavir in a group of CHB patients. METHODS: A recently published decision analytic model was adapted to study the cost-effectiveness of 2 years of treatment of entecavir in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative CHB patients from a public hospital perspective. Compensated cirrhosis (CC) and de-compensated cirrhosis (DC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) events were projected to 10 years. Hong Kong-specific health care costs were used. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated using the utility values obtained from a local study. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, compared with lamivudine, the use of entecavir was expected to reduce the incidences of CC, DC and HCC by 41.8%, 57.1% and 49.3%, respectively, and lead to a saving of $US 1.17 million in medical cost. The overall disease management cost for entecavir, which was 67.7% higher than lamivudine for 2 years treatment was reduced to 17.2% after projecting 2-year treatment duration to 10 years. The incremental cost per QALY gained for entecavir compared with lamivudine was $US 13 759. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of the World Health Organization, entecavir is considered cost-effective compared with lamivudine in treating CHB in Hong Kong when long term medical consequences were considered.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different rescue therapies in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B in China.

BACKGROUND: Several rescue therapies have been used in patients with lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, the economic outcome of these therapies is unclear. The object of the current analysis was to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of rescue therapies among patients with LAM-resistant CHB. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the clinical course of patients with LAM-resistant CHB. From the perspective of Chinese health care, a lifetime cost-utility analysis was performedfor 4 rescue strategies: adefovir (ADV), entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir (TDF) monotherapy and combination therapy using LAM and ADV. A hypothetical cohort of 45-year-old patients with genotypic or clinical LAM-resistant CHB entered the model, and the beginning health state was LAM-resistant CHB without other complications. The transition probabilities, efficacy and resistance data for each rescue therapy as well as the costs and utility data were estimated from the literature. The discount rate (3%) utilized for costs and benefits. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: In LAM-resistant HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative CHB cohorts, TDF monotherapy and combination therapy were on the efficiency frontier for both positive and negative populations. Compared with no treatment, the use of combination therapy cost an additional $6,531.7 to gain 1 additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for HBeAg-positive patients and $4,571.7 to gain 1 additional QALY for HBeAg-negative patients. TDF monotherapy for HBeAg-positive patients, shows greater increase in QALYs but higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in comparison with combination therapy. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, combination therapy was the preferred option for health care systems with limited health resources, such as Chinese health care system. CONCLUSION: In Chinese patients with LAM-resistant CHB, combination therapy is a more cost-effective option than the competing rescue therapies.

Chronic hepatitis B treatment: the cost-effectiveness of interferon compared to lamivudine.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness evaluation from the perspective of the Brazilian National Health System of alternatives strategies (i.e., conventional interferon, pegylated interferon, and lamivudine) for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B who present elevated aminotransferase levels and no evidence of cirrhosis at the beginning of treatment. METHODS: A Markov model was developed for chronic hepatitis B (hepatitis B antigen e [HBeAg] positive and negative) with 40 years' time horizon. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5%. Annual rates of disease progression, costs due to complications, and the efficacy of medicines were obtained from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated uncertainties. RESULTS: For HBeAg positive patients, peginterferon (48 weeks) resulted in an increase of 0.21 discounted life-years gained compared to interferon (24 weeks). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) converted to US dollars using the 2009 purchasing power parity conversion factor was US$100,752.24 per life-year gained. For HBeAg negative patients, it was observed that interferon (48 weeks) compared with long-term lamivudine presented an increase of 0.45 discounted life-years gained and ICER of US$15,766.90 per life-year gained. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER was more sensitive to variation in the probability of transition from chronic hepatitis B to compensated cirrhosis, discount rate, and medicine prices. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for HBeAg positive (pegylated interferon vs. conventional interferon) and negative (conventional interferon vs. lamivudine) showed that conventional interferon was cost-effective until three times the gross domestic product per capita. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with chronic hepatitis B with elevated aminotransferase levels in the pretreatment and no cirrhosis who were HBeAg positive, pegylated interferon (48 weeks) provided more life-years gained when compared to conventional interferon (24 weeks), and the ICER surpasses the country's buying power, which makes conventional interferon the chosen alternative. For HBeAg negative patients, conventional interferon (48 weeks) compared to lamivudine provided more life-years gained at a favorable ICER.

Cost-effectiveness of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor pairs in efavirenz-based regimens for treatment-naïve adults with HIV infection in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily tenofovir/emtricitabine compared with twice-daily zidovudine/lamivudine and once-daily abacavir/lamivudine in treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States. METHODS: A Markov model with four therapy lines and six health states based on CD4(+) cell-count ranges was developed to estimate lifetime costs and health outcomes. Efficacy data (virologic response and CD4(+) cell-count changes) for first-line therapy were from 144-week results of Study 934 comparing tenofovir/emtricitabine with zidovudine/lamivudine and 48-week results of Study CNA30024 comparing abacavir/lamivudine with zidovudine/lamivudine, all in combination with efavirenz. Data from Study CNA30024 for abacavir/lamivudine were adjusted to allow for an indirect comparison with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Subsequent therapy lines were based on likely baskets of antiretroviral therapy recommended by US treatment guidelines. Utility values, mortality rates, and costs (2009 US dollars) were obtained from published sources. Base-case results were tested in sensitivity and variability analyses. RESULTS: Average discounted results showed that individuals using tenofovir/emtricitabine were predicted to remain on first-line therapy for 7.7 years, accrue lifetime costs of $747,327, and experience 15.75 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), compared with 6.0 years, $777,090, and 15.68 QALYs for individuals using abacavir/lamivudine and 5.8 years, $778,287, and 15.44 QALYs for individuals using zidovudine/lamivudine. Tenofovir/emtricitabine was cost-effective compared with the other two first-line regimens in more than 75% of all probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulation runs for every willingness-to-pay threshold between $0 and $250,000 per QALY gained. Results were robust in variability and one-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Tenofovir/emtricitabine was predicted to be more effective and cost-saving compared with abacavir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine in treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of dolutegravir/lamivudine for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir(DTG)/lamivudine(3TC) is the first 2-drug regimen recommended as an initial treatment for people living with HIV (PLHIV). OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and potential budget impact of DTG/3TC in the US healthcare setting. METHODS: A previously published hybrid decision-tree and Markov cohort state transition model was adapted to estimate the incremental costs and health outcome benefits over a patients' lifetime. DTG/3TC was compared with current standard of care in treatment naive and treatment experienced virologically suppressed PLHIV. Health states included in the model were based upon virologic response and CD4 cell count, with death as an absorbing state. Clinical data was informed by the Phase III GEMINI 1 and 2 clinical trials, a published network meta-analysis (NMA) in treatment-naive patients and the Phase III TANGO clinical trial in treatment experienced patients. Costs and utilities were informed by published data and discounted annually at a rate of 3%. A separate 5-year budget impact analysis was conducted assuming 5%-15% uptake in eligible treatment naive and 10%-30% uptake in eligible treatment experienced patients. RESULTS: In the treatment naive analyses based on GEMINI 1 and 2, DTG/3TC dominated, i.e., was less costly and more effective, than all comparators. DTG/3TC resulted in 0.083 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a cost saving of $199,166 compared with the DTG + tenofovir disoproxil(TDF)/emtricitabine(FTC) comparator arm. The incremental QALY and cost savings for DTG/3TC compared with DTG/abacavir(ABC)/3TC, cobicistat-boosted darunavir(DRV/c)/tenofovir alafenamide(TAF)/FTC, and bictegravir (BIC)/TAF/FTC, based on NMA results were 0.465, 0.142, and 0.698, and $42,948, $122,846, and $44,962, respectively. In the analyses of treatment-experienced virologically suppressed patients based on TANGO, DTG/3TC offered slightly lower QALYs (-0.037) with an estimated savings of $78,730 when compared with continuation of TAF-based regimen (TBR). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that these conclusions were relatively insensitive to alternative parameter estimates. The budget impact analysis estimated that by 5th year a total of 70,240 treatment naive patients and 1,340,480 treatment experienced patients could be eligible to be prescribed DTG/3TC. The estimated budget savings over 5 years ranged from $1.12b to $3.35b (corresponding to 27,512 to 82,536 on DTG/3TC by year 5) in the lowest and highest uptake scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, DTG/3TC with its comparable efficacy and lower drug acquisition costs, has the potential to offer significant cost savings to US healthcare payers for the initial treatment of treatment naive patients and as a treatment switching option for virologically suppressed patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded in full by ViiV healthcare, Brentford, UK. Medical writing to support this study was also funded in full by ViiV Healthcare, Brentford, UK. Butler, Hayward, and Jacob are employees of HEOR Ltd, the company performing this study funded by ViiV Healthcare. Anderson is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline and owns shares in the company. Punekar, Evitt, and Oglesby are employees of ViiV Healthcare and own stocks in GlaxoSmithKline.

Cost-effectiveness of nucleoside analog therapy for hepatitis B in China: a Markov analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the economic consequences of nucleoside analog therapy for hepatitis B treatment in China. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis of treatments for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB) was conducted using a Markov model, in which patients' yearly transitions between different health states were tracked. Patients were tracked as they moved between the following health states: CHB, HBeAg seroconversion (HBeAg-positive CHB patients can have this special health state), virologic resistance, virologic response, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, and death. The transition parameters were derived either from systematic reviews of the literature or from previous economic studies. Cost and utility data came from studies based on a Chinese CHB cohort. One-way sensitivity analyses as well as second-order Monte Carlo and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The entecavir strategy yielded the most quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients when compared with the "no treatment," the lamivudine, the adefovir, and the telbivudine strategies. The risks of complications and mortality also decreased. In the economic analysis, the "no treatment" strategy was the least effective, whereas the entecavir strategy was both the least expensive and the most cost-effective option, followed by telbivudine and lamivudine. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the entecavir strategy would result in improved cost-effectiveness in >90% of cases at a threshold of $20,000 per QALY. In a one-way sensitivity analysis, the most influential parameters impacting the model's robustness were the utilities of the CHB and virologic response health states. CONCLUSIONS: In China, when treating both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative CHB populations, entecavir is the most cost-effective option when compared with lamivudine, adefovir, and telbivudine.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the treatment of chronic hepatitis B with peginterferon alfa-2a, interferon alfa, and lamivudine in Lithuania.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B infection is an important health care problem worldwide. According to the World Health Organization, 10% to 15% of population is infected with hepatitis B virus. Nearly 100 new cases of acute hepatitis B are annually registered in Lithuania, but official statistics covers only 8-25% of all disease incidence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of chronic hepatitis B with peginterferon alfa-2a and compare it to treatment with interferon alfa and lamivudine in Lithuania. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of the treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a and to compare it with treatment with interferon alfa and lamivudine. Peginterferon alfa-2a was administered by subcutaneous injections at a dosage of 180 µg every week for 48 weeks; interferon alfa, 6 million IU three times a week for 24 weeks; and lamivudine, 100 mg per day from 48 weeks to 5 years for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B and 100 mg per day up to 5 years in HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B. RESULTS: Treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a gained 1.179 life years as compared to 0.658 life years gained with treatment with interferon alfa; incremental costs per incremental life-year gained (LYG) were 51,256.92 Lt (14,845.03 €). Treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a gained 0.545 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with incremental costs per incremental QALY of 48,980.08 Lt (14,185.61 €). Treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a had twice higher cost-effectiveness than treatment with interferon alfa: 50,4167.00 Lt (146,016.85 €) vs. 954,020.08 Lt (276,303.31 €), respectively. Costs for a complete response were also twice lower. Treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a gained 0.757 incremental LYG more compared to lamivudine (48-week course). Comparing incremental cost-effectiveness using peginterferon alfa-2a for treatment, incremental costs per incremental LYG were 41,993.67 Lt (12,162.21 €); additionally there was a gain of 0.792 incremental QALYs, while incremental costs for incremental QALY were 40,096.19 Lt (11,612.66 €). Complete response costs were 83,515.98 Lt (24,187.89 €) less compared to lamivudine (48-week course). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of chronic hepatitis B prolongs patients' overall survival and quality-adjusted life. Peginterferon alfa-2a was the most effective drug registered in Lithuania for CHB treatment.

Decision analysis model for hepatitis B prophylaxis one year after liver transplantation.

In patients receiving orthotopic liver transplantation, hepatitis B recurrence rates have decreased significantly with the use of various methods for prophylaxis. At present, a combination of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and lamivudine is the standard of care, resulting in recurrence rates of 0% to 11%. Recent data suggest that the addition of adefovir to lamivudine is successful in treating patients with recurrent hepatitis B infection. A Markov model was used to compare costs and outcomes of 2 strategies for hepatitis B prophylaxis 1 year after transplantation. The first consisted of prophylaxis with lamivudine and adefovir (strategy 1), whereas the second consisted of intramuscular HBIG and lamivudine (strategy 2) with the addition of adefovir in patients who subsequently developed hepatitis B recurrence. Patients who failed with adefovir and lamivudine were then treated with tenofovir and entecavir. 16.8% of liver transplant recipients had hepatitis B recurrence after 10 years of treatment with lamivudine and HBIG. The medical costs for strategy 1 and strategy 2 after 10 years of therapy were $151,819 and $166,246, respectively, and this resulted in cost savings of $14,427. The decision analysis model began 1 year after liver transplantation. A 1-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the model was most sensitive to cost changes of adefovir and HBIG injections as well as variations in the hepatitis B virus recurrence rate. The model was robust to costs of lamivudine, laboratory costs, administrative fees, and office visit fees. Our decision analysis model resulted in marked savings in costs with strategy 1 (lamivudine and adefovir), providing pharmacoeconomic support for the use of this strategy as first-line therapy in hepatitis B prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients 1 year after liver transplantation.