Cost-effectiveness of dolutegravir vs. efavirenz-based combined antiretroviral therapies in HIV-infected treatment-naive patients in a Nigerian treatment centre.

Background: Dolutegravir (DTG) based antiretroviral therapy (ART) has largely replaced Efavirenz (EFV) based therapy as the preferred first-line regimen in the treatment of adults with HIV. This study was carried out to evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of DTG and EFV-based ART in HIV-infected treatment-naïve patients in a treatment centre in Nigeria. Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of patients initiated on DTG vs. EFV-based regimens from January 2018 to December 2019 at the APIN/HAVARD clinic of Nigeria's Jos University Teaching Hospital. The current viral load result was used to determine treatment effectiveness using a benchmark of ≤200 copies/mL. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to ensure the robustness of the benchmark. The total cost of treatment was obtained by summing up the relevant cost components. Appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics were employed in data analysis using Statistical Product and Services Solutions (SPSS) V.25. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DTG compared to EFV was presented as cost/effectiveness. Results: Treatment was effective in 42(51.9%) and 58(71.6%) patients initiated on DTG and EFV-based regimen, respectively. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of patients on DTG compared to those on EFV was $10.5076 per effectiveness, which was less than 1% of the Nigerian 2019 per capita Gross Domestic Product. Sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of the result. Conclusion: Efavirenz based regimen had higher treatment effectiveness than DTG-based regimen in treatment-naive patients after initiating treatment in a short term. Compared to EFV, DTG-based regimen is cost-effective in the management of treatment naïve HIV patients.

Cost benefit of investment on quality in pharmaceutical manufacturing: WHO GMP pre- and post-certification of a Nigerian pharmaceutical manufacturer.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical companies in Africa need to invest in both facilities and quality management systems to achieve good manufacturing practice (GMP) compliance. Compliance to international GMP standards is important to the attainment of World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification. However, most of the local pharmaceutical manufacturing companies may be deterred from investing in quality because of many reasons, ranging from financial constraints to technical capacity. This paper primarily evaluates benefits against the cost of investing in GMP, using a Nigerian pharmaceutical company, Chi Pharmaceuticals Limited, as a case study. This paper also discusses how to drive more local manufacturers to invest in quality to attain GMP compliance; and proffers practical recommendations for local manufacturers who would want to invest in quality to meet ethical and regulatory obligations. METHOD: The cost benefit of improving the quality of Chi Pharmaceuticals Limited's facilities and system to attain WHO GMP certification for the production of zinc sulfate 20-mg dispersible tablets was calculated by dividing the annual benefits derived from quality improvement interventions by the annual costs of implementing quality improvement interventions, referred to as a benefit-cost ratio (BCR). RESULT: Cost benefit of obtaining WHO GMP certification for the production of zinc sulfate 20-mg dispersible tablets was 5.3 (95% confidence interval of 5.0-5.5). CONCLUSION: Investment in quality improvement intervention is cost-beneficial for local manufacturing companies. Governments and regulators in African countries should support pharmaceutical companies striving to invest in quality. Collaboration of local manufacturing companies with global companies will further improve quality. Local pharmaceutical companies should be encouraged to key into development opportunities available for pharmaceutical companies in Africa.