The lifetime medical cost savings from preventing HIV in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced HIV prevention interventions, such as preexposure prophylaxis for high-risk individuals, require substantial investments. We sought to estimate the medical cost saved by averting 1 HIV infection in the United States. METHODS: We estimated lifetime medical costs in persons with and without HIV to determine the cost saved by preventing 1 HIV infection. We used a computer simulation model of HIV disease and treatment (CEPAC) to project CD4 cell count, antiretroviral treatment status, and mortality after HIV infection. Annual medical cost estimates for HIV-infected persons, adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and transmission risk group, were from the HIV Research Network (range, $1854-$4545/mo) and for HIV-uninfected persons were from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (range, $73-$628/mo). Results are reported as lifetime medical costs from the US health system perspective discounted at 3% (2012 USD). RESULTS: The estimated discounted lifetime cost for persons who become HIV infected at age 35 is $326,500 (60% for antiretroviral medications, 15% for other medications, 25% nondrug costs). For individuals who remain uninfected but at high risk for infection, the discounted lifetime cost estimate is $96,700. The medical cost saved by avoiding 1 HIV infection is $229,800. The cost saved would reach $338,400 if all HIV-infected individuals presented early and remained in care. Cost savings are higher taking into account secondary infections avoided and lower if HIV infections are temporarily delayed rather than permanently avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The economic value of HIV prevention in the United States is substantial given the high cost of HIV disease treatment.

HIV cure strategies: how good must they be to improve on current antiretroviral therapy?

BACKGROUND: We examined efficacy, toxicity, relapse, cost, and quality-of-life thresholds of hypothetical HIV cure interventions that would make them cost-effective compared to life-long antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: We used a computer simulation model to assess three HIV cure strategies: Gene Therapy, Chemotherapy, and Stem Cell Transplantation (SCT), each compared to ART. Efficacy and cost parameters were varied widely in sensitivity analysis. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life expectancy, lifetime cost, and cost-effectiveness in dollars/quality-adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained. Strategies were deemed cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$100,000/QALY. RESULTS: For patients on ART, discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy was 16.4 years and lifetime costs were $591,400. Gene Therapy was cost-effective with efficacy of 10%, relapse rate 0.5%/month, and cost $54,000. Chemotherapy was cost-effective with efficacy of 88%, relapse rate 0.5%/month, and cost $12,400/month for 24 months. At $150,000/procedure, SCT was cost-effective with efficacy of 79% and relapse rate 0.5%/month. Moderate efficacy increases and cost reductions made Gene Therapy cost-saving, but substantial efficacy/cost changes were needed to make Chemotherapy or SCT cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on efficacy, relapse rate, and cost, cure strategies could be cost-effective compared to current ART and potentially cost-saving. These results may help provide performance targets for developing cure strategies for HIV.

The survival benefits of antiretroviral therapy in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: We sought to quantify the survival benefits attributable to antiretroviral therapy (ART) in South Africa since 2004. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications-International model (CEPAC) to simulate 8 cohorts of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients initiating ART each year during 2004-2011. Model inputs included cohort-specific mean CD4(+) T-cell count at ART initiation (112-178 cells/µL), 24-week ART suppressive efficacy (78%), second-line ART availability (2.4% of ART recipients), and cohort-specific 36-month retention rate (55%-71%). CEPAC simulated survival twice for each cohort, once with and once without ART. The sum of the products of per capita survival differences and the total numbers of persons initiating ART for each cohort yielded the total survival benefits. RESULTS: Lifetime per capita survival benefits ranged from 9.3 to 10.2 life-years across the 8 cohorts. Total estimated population lifetime survival benefit for all persons starting ART during 2004-2011 was 21.7 million life-years, of which 2.8 million life-years (12.7%) had been realized by December 2012. By 2030, benefits reached 17.9 million life-years under current policies, 21.7 million life-years with universal second-line ART, 23.3 million life-years with increased linkage to care of eligible untreated patients, and 28.0 million life-years with both linkage to care and universal second-line ART. CONCLUSIONS: We found dramatic past and potential future survival benefits attributable to ART, justifying international support of ART rollout in South Africa.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of UGT1A1 genetic testing to inform antiretroviral prescribing in HIV disease.

BACKGROUND: Homozygosity for UGT1A1*28/*28 has been reported to be associated with atazanavir-associated hyperbilirubinaemia and premature atazanavir discontinuation. We assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 testing to inform the choice of an initial protease-inhibitor-containing regimen in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive individuals. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications computer simulation model to project quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs (2009 USD) for atazanavir-based ART with or without UGT1A1 testing, using darunavir rather than atazanavir when indicated. We assumed the UGT1A1-associated atazanavir discontinuation rate reported in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (a *28/*28 frequency of 14.9%), equal efficacy and cost of atazanavir and darunavir and a genetic assay cost of $107. These parameters, as well as the effect of hyperbilirubinaemia on quality of life and loss to follow up, were varied in sensitivity analyses. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Initiating atazanavir-based ART at CD4(+) T-cell counts <500 cells/µl without UGT1A1 testing had an average discounted life expectancy of 16.02 QALYs and $475,800 discounted lifetime cost. Testing for UGT1A1 increased QALYs by 0.49 per 10,000 patients tested and was not cost-effective (>$100,000/QALY). Testing for UGT1A1 was cost-effective (<$100,000/QALY) if assay cost decreased to $10, or if avoiding hyperbilirubinaemia by UGT1A1 testing reduced loss to follow-up by 5%. If atazanavir and darunavir differed in cost or efficacy, testing for UGT1A1 was not cost-effective under any scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Testing for UGT1A1 may be cost-effective if assay cost is low and if testing improves retention in care, but only if the comparator ART regimens have the same drug cost and efficacy.