Cost-effectiveness of HIV treatment as prevention in serodiscordant couples.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of early antiretroviral therapy (ART) in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in serodiscordant couples is not known. Using a computer simulation of the progression of HIV infection and data from the HIV Prevention Trials Network 052 study, we projected the cost-effectiveness of early ART for such persons. METHODS: For HIV-infected partners in serodiscordant couples in South Africa and India, we compared the early initiation of ART with delayed ART. Five-year and lifetime outcomes included cumulative HIV transmissions, life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness. We classified early ART as very cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the annual per capita gross domestic product (GDP; $8,100 in South Africa and $1,500 in India), as cost-effective if the ratio was less than three times the GDP, and as cost-saving if it resulted in a decrease in total costs and an increase in life-years, as compared with delayed ART. RESULTS: In South Africa, early ART prevented opportunistic diseases and was cost-saving over a 5-year period; over a lifetime, it was very cost-effective ($590 per life-year saved). In India, early ART was cost-effective ($1,800 per life-year saved) over a 5-year period and very cost-effective ($530 per life-year saved) over a lifetime. In both countries, early ART prevented HIV transmission over short periods, but longer survival attenuated this effect; the main driver of life-years saved was a clinical benefit for treated patients. Early ART remained very cost-effective over a lifetime under most modeled assumptions in the two countries. CONCLUSIONS: In South Africa, early ART was cost-saving over a 5-year period. In both South Africa and India, early ART was projected to be very cost-effective over a lifetime. With individual, public health, and economic benefits, there is a compelling case for early ART for serodiscordant couples in resource-limited settings. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others.).

Economic savings versus health losses: the cost-effectiveness of generic antiretroviral therapy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: U.S. HIV treatment guidelines recommend branded once-daily, 1-pill efavirenz-emtricitabine-tenofovir as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). With the anticipated approval of generic efavirenz in the United States, a once-daily, 3-pill alternative (generic efavirenz, generic lamivudine, and tenofovir) will decrease cost but may reduce adherence and virologic suppression. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effect, costs, and cost-effectiveness of a 3-pill, generic-based regimen compared with a branded, coformulated regimen and to project the potential national savings in the first year of a switch to generic-based ART. DESIGN: Mathematical simulation of HIV disease. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: HIV-infected persons. INTERVENTION: No ART (for comparison); 3-pill, generic-based ART; and branded ART. MEASUREMENTS: Quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Compared with no ART, generic-based ART has an ICER of $21,100/QALY. Compared with generic-based ART, branded ART increases lifetime costs by $42,500 and per-person survival gains by 0.37 QALYs for an ICER of $114,800/QALY. Estimated first-year savings, if all eligible U.S. patients start or switch to generic-based ART, are $920 million. Most plausible assumptions about generic-based ART efficacy and costs lead to branded ART ICERs greater than $100,000/QALY. LIMITATION: The efficacy and price reduction associated with generic drugs are unknown, and estimates are intended to be conservative. CONCLUSION: Compared with a slightly less effective generic-based regimen, the cost-effectiveness of first-line branded ART exceeds $100,000/QALY. Generic-based ART in the United States could yield substantial budgetary savings to HIV programs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Cost-effectiveness of genotype testing for primary resistance in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: HIV genotype-resistance testing can help identify more effective antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens for patients, substantially increasing the likelihood of viral suppression and immune recovery. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-resistance testing before first-line ART initiation in Brazil. DESIGN: We used a previously published microsimulation model of HIV disease (CEPAC-International) and data from Brazil to compare the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of initial genotype testing (Genotype) with no initial genotype testing (No genotype). METHODS: Model parameters were derived from the HIV Clinical Cohort at the Evandro Chagas Clinical Research Institute and from published data, using Brazilian sources whenever possible. Baseline patient characteristics included 69% male, mean age of 36 years (SD, 10 years), mean CD4 count of 347 per microliter (SD, 300/µL) at ART initiation, annual ART costs from 2012 US $1400 to US $13,400, genotype test cost of US $230, and primary resistance prevalence of 4.4%. Life expectancy and costs were discounted 3% per year. Genotype was defined as "cost-effective" compared with No Genotype if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than 3 times the 2012 Brazilian per capita GDP of US $12,300. RESULTS: Compared with No genotype, Genotype increased life expectancy from 18.45 to 18.47 years and reduced lifetime cost from US $45,000 to $44,770; thus, in the base case, Genotype was cost saving. Genotype was cost-effective at primary resistance prevalence as low as 1.4% and remained cost-effective when subsequent-line ART costs decreased to 30% of baseline value. Cost-inefficient results were observed only when simultaneously holding multiple parameters to extremes of their plausible ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype-resistance testing in ART-naive individuals in Brazil will improve survival and decrease costs and should be incorporated into HIV treatment guidelines in Brazil.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of expanded voluntary HIV testing in India.

BACKGROUND: Despite expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), most of the estimated 2.3 to 2.5 million HIV-infected individuals in India remain undiagnosed. The questions of whom to test for HIV and at what frequency remain unclear. METHODS: We used a simulation model of HIV testing and treatment to examine alternative HIV screening strategies: 1) current practice, 2) one-time, 3) every five years, and 4) annually; and we applied these strategies to three population scenarios: 1) the general Indian population ("national population"), i.e. base case (HIV prevalence 0.29%; incidence 0.032/100 person-years [PY]); 2) high-prevalence districts (HIV prevalence 0.8%; incidence 0.088/100 PY), and 3) high-risk groups (HIV prevalence 5.0%; incidence 0.552/100 PY). Cohort characteristics reflected Indians reporting for HIV testing, with a median age of 35 years, 66% men, and a mean CD4 count of 305 cells/µl. The cost of a rapid HIV test was $3.33. Outcomes included life expectancy, HIV-related direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and secondary transmission benefits. The threshold for "cost-effective" was defined as 3x the annual per capita GDP of India ($3,900/year of life saved [YLS]), or for "very cost-effective" was <1x the annual per capita GDP ($1,300/YLS). RESULTS: Compared to current practice, one-time screening was very cost-effective in the national population (ICER: $1,100/YLS), high-prevalence districts (ICER: $800/YLS), and high-risk groups (ICER: $800/YLS). Screening every five years in the national population (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and annual screening in high-prevalence districts (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and high-risk groups (ICER: $1,800/YLS) were also cost-effective. Results were most sensitive to costs of care and linkage-to-care. CONCLUSIONS: In India, voluntary HIV screening of the national population every five years offers substantial clinical benefit and is cost-effective. Annual screening is cost-effective among high-risk groups and in high-prevalence districts nationally. Routine HIV screening in India should be implemented.