[CLINICAL AND PHARMACOECONOMIC RESULTS OF THE USAGE OF VARIOUS HIV REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE INHIBITORS IN THE SCHEMES OF ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY OF PATIENT RECEIVING THERAPY FOR THE CHRONIC HEPATITIS C VIRUS].

Efficacy, safety, and economical aspects of treatment with abacavir, zidovudine, stavudine, and phosphazide in the schemes of antiretroviral therapy of the HIV-infected patients receiving therapy for hepatitis C virus were tested. Clinical, immunological, and virologic efficacy of treatment and dynamics of hemoglobin, thrombocytes, and alanine aminotransferase as markers of common adverse events recorded at the start of the antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C and after 4, 8, 12, 24, 48 weeks of the treatment were evaluated. The usage of these drugs in the schemes of antiretroviral therapy exhibited efficacy, high tolerability and safety for all HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy versus nevirapine-including regimens for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV option B plus in resource-limited settings: is there anything missing?

In 2013, an estimated 1.5 million HIV-positive pregnant women gave birth, with 240,000 children worldwide acquiring HIV. More than 90% of new pediatric infections occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa. The latest WHO guidelines recommended efavirenz (EFV)-based antiretroviral therapy as the first-line regimen for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT). On the other hand, some data suggest that nevirapine (NVP), a well-known antiretroviral, could still play a relevant role in PMTCT, especially in resource-limited settings (RLSs) where the fertility rate is dramatically high compared to developed countries. Given the lack of an unanimous consensus and definitive opinions, this paper goes through the reasons for WHO decisions and aims at refreshing the debate about NVP and EFV pros and cons for PMTCT in RLSs.

A farewell to didanosine: harm reduction and cost savings by eliminating use of didanosine.

Didanosine (ddI) is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor associated with adverse events and public health concerns which have diminished its place in HIV clinical practice, particularly in resource-rich settings. While international guidelines do not contain ddI-containing regimens in preferred first- or second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), there is no guidance for management of patients currently on ddI. In 2012 at least 20 countries purchased a total of $1-2 million of ddI. Drug purchase data in that year show 3.2-10.3 times higher costs for ddI compared to lamivudine (3TC). Given issues of multiple toxicities, monitoring, drug interactions, inconvenience, and virologic efficacy, as well as cost and formulary concerns, national (including resource-limited setting) ART programmes should consider complete phase-out of ddI.

[Challenges of lopinavir/ritonavir in the chronicity of human immunodeficiency virus infection]. / Desafíos de lopinavir/ritonavir en la cronicidad de la infección por virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana.

Combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) has increased patient survival, which is currently similar to that of the general population in western countries. However, ART is unable to completely restore normal health, given the persistence of chronic immune activation. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has become a chronic disease and 50% of patients will soon be older than 50 years. Currently, there is a debate on the possibility of accelerated aging in the HIV-infected population. An overlap has been observed between chronic inflammation, age-related comorbidities, lifestyle, and the long-term toxicity of ART. ART-related toxicity can encourage the development of comorbidities, especially cardiovascular and renal complications, while toxicity-especially that of thymidine analogs-can also contribute to inflammation and aging. Evidence is available on simplification strategies with boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy aiming to avoid or reduce potential or demonstrated toxicity. Currently, studies are underway of dual therapy strategies with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) with distinct antiretroviral agents. The studies with the largest samples are those with raltegravir and lamivudine. The GARDEL trial has demonstrated that dual therapy with LPV/r plus a generic drug such as lamivudine is non-inferior to triple therapy in treatment- naïve patients. All of the above indicates the response to the challenge posed to LPV/r by the chronic phase of the disease and by the need to reduce costs.

[Budget impact analysis of efavirenz daily dose reduction at the Verona University Hospital]. / La riduzione del dosaggio giornaliero di efavirenz nella terapia antiretrovirale: impatto sul budget nell'Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona.

Efavirenz is a non-nucleoside-reverse-transcriptase-inhibitor used as part of highly-active-antiretroviral-therapy for the treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 infection. The present paper aims to describing the impact of efavirenz dose reduction on the pharmaceutical budget at the Verona University Hospital. A budget impact analysis comparing two prescribing scenarios was conducted: all patients treated with the efavirenz full dose (600 mg per day) vs. a proportion of patients treated with a reduced dose (200-400 mg per day). All outpatients referring to the Infectious Disease Clinic in the period November 2009-October 2011 were selected. Out of 132 patients treated with efavirenz, 25 were not considered, mainly due to a too short treatment period. Of the remaining 107 patients, 68 received the full dose, while 39 received a reduced dosage. The analysis included the cost of the drug and of diagnostic tests, from the National Health Service perspective. The daily dose reduction of efavirenz saved 54,664 euros (a 30% expenditure reduction). In sum, new strategies for pharmaceutical system sustainability are necessary; despite forthcoming expiring patents of several drugs, spending on antiretroviral drugs is expected to rise. This paper suggests a way of linking clinical benefits and cost reduction.

Antiretroviral treatment-based cost saving interventions may offset expenses for new patients and earlier treatment start.

OBJECTIVES: Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has become the main driver of total costs of caring for persons living with HIV (PLHIV). The present study estimated the short/medium-term cost trends in response to the recent evolution of national guidelines and regional therapeutic protocols for cART in Italy. METHODS: We developed a deterministic mathematical model that was calibrated using epidemic data for Lazio, a region located in central Italy with about six million inhabitants. RESULTS: In the Base Case Scenario, the estimated number of PLHIV in the Lazio region increased over the period 2012-2016 from 14 414 to 17 179. Over the same period, the average projected annual cost for treating the HIV-infected population was €147.0 million. An earlier cART initiation resulted in a rise of 2.3% in the average estimated annual cost, whereas an increase from 27% to 50% in the proportion of naïve subjects starting cART with a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimen resulted in a reduction of 0.3%. Simplification strategies based on NNRTIs co-formulated in a single tablet regimen and protease inhibitor/ritonavir-boosted monotherapy produced an overall reduction in average annual costs of 1.5%. A further average saving of 3.3% resulted from the introduction of generic antiretroviral drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In the medium term, cost saving interventions could finance the increase in costs resulting from the inertial growth in the number of patients requiring treatment and from the earlier treatment initiation recommended in recent guidelines.

Single-tablet regimens in HIV: does it really make a difference?

OBJECTIVES: Review of the available data on the currently available single-tablet regimens (STRs), from the analysis of efficacy and safety to the key points of value in terms of adherence, quality of life and pharmacoeconomic evaluation. METHODS: For this narrative review, literature searches have been performed in PubMed, IndexRevMed and Cochrane, using the search terms HIV, single-tablet, one-pill, single dose, fixed-dose, and STR. These have been reviewed and complemented with the most recent publications of interest. RESULTS: Fixed-dose combinations are a significant advance in antiretroviral treatment simplification, contributing to an increase in compliance with complex chronic therapies, thus improving patients' quality of life. Reducing the number of pills and daily doses is associated with higher adherence and better quality of life. As a fixed-dose combination tablet given once daily, EFV/FTC/TDF was the first available STR combining efficacy, tolerability and convenience, with the simplest dosing schedule and smallest numbers of pills of any ART combination therapy. The RPV/FTC/TDF is a next-generation NNRTI-based STR, a once daily complete ART regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Recently the combination of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was also approved by the European Commission, and is the first integrase inhibitor-based STR. Receiving antiretroviral therapy as once daily STR is associated with both clinical and economic benefits, which confirms previous research. CONCLUSIONS: The associated benefits of STRs provide a valid strategy for the treatment of HIV-infected patients.

Cost-effectiveness of efavirenz vs rilpivirine in HIV patients initiating first-line combination antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE: In US treatment guidelines, efavirenz (EFV) is the preferred non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) for first-line HIV treatment. In the ECHO and THRIVE trials comparing EFV with another NNRTI, rilpivirine (RPV), both medications had similar virologic suppression rates at 96-weeks; however, RPV had higher rates of virologic failure and drug resistance and lower rates of discontinuation due to adverse events. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of EFV to RPV in first-line HIV treatment in the US. METHODS: A Markov model with 14 health states was constructed to estimate 10-year costs and clinical outcomes from a US payer perspective for antiretroviral naïve HIV patients initiating EFV or RPV. First-line efficacy data came from 96-week results of the ECHO and THRIVE trials, which compared EFV and RPV, both in combination with two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Other clinical inputs, mortality rates, and costs (2011 US$) came from published sources. Subsequent therapy lines (second, third, non-suppressive) were based on US treatment guidelines and common to both treatment arms. Robustness of study results was assessed in sensitivity analyses varying model inputs by ±25%. Potential limitations of the model center on the ability of any model to capture the clinical complexity of HIV treatment. RESULTS: In the base case, 10-year costs were lower for EFV compared to RPV ($214,031 vs $222,090). Life expectancy (8.44 years) and years without AIDS (8.40 years) were equal; years in virologic suppression were similar (EFV = 7.87 years, RPV = 7.86 years). EFV had modest cost savings compared to RPV in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness per life-year gained, life-year gained in viral suppression, and life-year gained without AIDS. In sensitivity analyses, EFV remained cost-saving compared to RPV in over 90% of scenarios, demonstrating the robustness of study results. CONCLUSIONS: EFV was predicted to be modestly cost-saving compared with RPV over 10 years in US patients initiating first-line HIV treatment. Sensitivity analyses suggest that results may hold across multiple settings.

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 the third-agent class in treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in Portugal.

INTRODUCTION: Current Portuguese HIV treatment guidelines recommend initiating antiretroviral therapy with a regimen composed of two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors plus one Non-nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (2NRTI+NNRTI) or two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors plus one boosted protease inhibitor (2NRTI+PI/r). Given the lower daily cost of NNRTI as the third agent when compared to the average daily costs of PI/r, it is relevant to estimate the long term impact of each treatment option in the Portuguese context. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation discrete events model for cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV treatment, simulating individual paths from ART initiation to death. Four driving forces determine the course of events: CD4+ cell count, viral load, resistance and adherence. Distributions of time to event are conditional to individuals' characteristics and past history. Time to event was modeled using parametric survival analysis using Stata 11®. Disease progression was structured according to therapy lines and the model was parameterized with cohort Portuguese observational data. All resources were valued at 2009 prices. The National Health Service's perspective was assumed considering a lifetime horizon and a 5% annual discount rate. RESULTS: In this analysis, initiating therapy with two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors plus one Non-nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor reduces the average number of switches by 17%, saves 19.573€ per individual and increases life expectancy by 1.7 months showing to be a dominant strategy in 57% of the simulations when compared to two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors plus one boosted protease inhibitor. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that, when clinically valid, initiating therapy with two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors plus one Non-nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor is a cost-saving strategy and equally effective when compared to two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors plus one boosted protease inhibitor as the first regimen.

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.

Rilpivirine: a second-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor.

PURPOSE: The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, dosage and administration, and place in therapy of rilpivirine are reviewed. SUMMARY: Rilpivirine is a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-specific nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) indicated for use in combination with other antiretroviral agents in adult patients not previously treated with antiretroviral therapy. Rilpivirine is primarily metabolized by the cytochrome P-450 (CYP)3A isoenzyme system. Therefore, providers should be cautious when administering drugs that are inhibitors or inducers of this pathway. Coadministration with CYP 3A inhibitors may lead to increased concentrations of rilpivirine, thereby increasing the risk of adverse effects. Coadministration with inducers of CYP3A isoenzymes or drugs that increase gastric pH may lead to decreased concentrations of rilpivirine, thus promoting virological failure or resistance to rilpivirine. Two Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trials compared rilpivirine with efavirenz in HIV-infected adults not previously treated with an antiretroviral. The investigators concluded that rilpivirine, when combined with two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, was noninferior to efavirenz for reaching the endpoint of confirmed virological response (HIV-1 RNA level of <50 copies/mL) in adults with HIV infection not previously treated with antiretroviral therapy. The most commonly reported adverse effects included depression, insomnia, headache, and rash. Rilpivirine is administered as a single 25-mg tablet given once daily in combination with other antiretroviral drugs in order to optimize efficacy and reduce resistance. CONCLUSION: Rilpivirine is a viable NNRTI for HIV-infected patients who have not previously received antiretroviral therapy.

Cost effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B from a Canadian public payer perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research has demonstrated that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) is the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the UK, Spain, Italy and France. However, to our knowledge, no published studies have yet evaluated the cost effectiveness of any treatments for CHB in a Canadian setting, where relative prices and management of CHB differ from those in Europe. AIM: Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of tenofovir DF compared with other nucleos(t)ide therapies licensed for CHB in Canada from the perspective of publicly funded healthcare payers. METHODS: A Markov model was used to calculate the costs and benefits of nucleos(t)ide therapy in three groups of patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and -negative CHB: nucleos(t)ide-naive patients without cirrhosis; nucleos(t)ide-naive patients with compensated cirrhosis; and lamivudine-resistant patients. Disease progression was modelled as annual transitions between 18 disease states. Transition probabilities, quality of life and costs were based on published studies. Health benefits were measured in QALYs. The reference year for costs was 2007 and costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. RESULTS: First-line tenofovir DF was the most effective nucleos(t)ide strategy for managing CHB, generating 6.85-9.39 QALYs per patient. First-line tenofovir DF was also the most cost-effective strategy in all patient subgroups investigated, costing between $Can43,758 and $Can48,015 per QALY gained compared with lamivudine then tenofovir. First-line tenofovir DF strongly dominated first-line entecavir. Giving tenofovir DF monotherapy immediately after lamivudine resistance developed was less costly and more effective than any other active treatment strategy investigated for lamivudine-resistant CHB, including second-line use of adefovir or adefovir + lamivudine. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated 50% confidence that first-line tenofovir DF is the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide strategy for treatment-naive patients with CHB, at a $Can50,000 per QALY threshold, and confirmed that first-line tenofovir DF has the highest expected net benefits. CONCLUSIONS: First-line tenofovir DF appears to be the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide treatment for both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic CHB patients in Canada, providing that society is willing to pay at least $Can48,015 per QALY gained, although sensitivity analyses highlighted uncertainty around the results.

Calculation of direct antiretroviral treatment costs and potential cost savings by using generics in the German HIV ClinSurv cohort.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND/AIM OF THE STUDY: The study aimed to determine the cost impacts of antiretroviral drugs by analysing a long-term follow-up of direct costs for combined antiretroviral therapy, cART, -regimens in the nationwide long-term observational multi-centre German HIV ClinSurv Cohort. The second aim was to develop potential cost saving strategies by modelling different treatment scenarios. METHODS: Antiretroviral regimens (ART) from 10,190 HIV-infected patients from 11 participating ClinSurv study centres have been investigated since 1996. Biannual data cART-initiation, cART-changes, surrogate markers, clinical events and the Centre of Disease Control- (CDC)-stage of HIV disease are reported. Treatment duration was calculated on a daily basis via the documented dates for the beginning and end of each antiretroviral drug treatment. Prices were calculated for each individual regimen based on actual office sales prices of the branded pharmaceuticals distributed by the license holder including German taxes. RESULTS: During the 13-year follow-up period, 21,387,427 treatment days were covered. Cumulative direct costs for antiretroviral drugs of €812,877,356 were determined according to an average of €42.08 per day (€7.52 to € 217.70). Since cART is widely used in Germany, the costs for an entire regimen increased by 13.5%. Regimens are more expensive in the advanced stages of HIV disease. The potential for cost savings was calculated using non-nucleotide-reverse-transcriptase-inhibitor, NNRTI, more frequently instead of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor, PI/r, in first line therapy. This calculation revealed cumulative savings of 10.9% to 19.8% of daily treatment costs (50% and 90% substitution of PI/r, respectively). Substituting certain branded drugs by generic drugs showed potential cost savings of between 1.6% and 31.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the data of this nationwide study reflects disease-specific health services research and will give insights into the cost impacts of antiretroviral therapy, and might allow a more rational allocation of resources within the German health care system.

[Evidence-based therapeutic drug monitoring for efavirenz]. / Niveau de preuve du suivi thérapeutique pharmacologique de l'efavirenz.

The efavirenz, a non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor of HIV-1, presents a marked pharmacokinetics variability related to an intense hepatic metabolism. Efavirenz is also a potent inducer. Central nervous system (CNS) toxicity associated with efavirenz therapy is a major cause of non adherence and therefore treatment failure. The literature has been analyzed to evaluate the level of evidence of the interest of a therapeutic drug monitoring for efavirenz. Several studies have reported that an efavirenz plasma concentration >1 000 ng/mL is a predictive factor of the viral response. Efavirenz plasma concentrations >4 000 ng/mL were associated to an increase frequency of CNS side effects. CNS toxicity was also more frequent in patients carrying the 516G > T mutation (CYP2B6*6 allele), associated with a significantly greater efavirenz plasma exposure. Non-randomized studies have reported the interest of efavirenz therapeutic drug monitoring to optimize viral response and prevent CNS toxicity, allowing to suggest a level of evidence "recommended" for efavirenz.

[Evidence-based therapeutic drug monitoring for nevirapine]. / Niveau de preuve du suivi therapeutique pharmacologique de la névirapine.

Nevirapine, a HIV non nucleosidic reverse transcriptase inhibitor, displays an inter-individual variability in its pharmacokinetics parameters, related to its hepatic metabolism. Based on literature, is the nevirapine therapeutic drug monitoring relevant? In naïve and pre-treated HIV infected patients, the probability of achieving and maintaining an undetectable HIV viral load was significantly associated with a nevirapine plasma trough concentration (C(trough)) > 4 000 ng/mL. The probability of virologic failure was significantly associated with a C(trough) < 3 000 ng/mL. Concerning the exposure-toxicity relationship, the emergence of hepatotoxicity was more frequently associated with high C(trough), especially in case of HCV coinfection. Non-randomized studies have reported the interest of nevirapine therapeutic drug monitoring to optimize the virologic response and, to a lesser extent, to prevent hepatotoxicity. Therefore, the level of evidence of the interest of nevirapine therapeutic drug monitoring is "recommended".

Cost-effectiveness of maternal treatment to prevent perinatal hepatitis B virus transmission.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of maternal lamivudine or hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) treatment, in addition to standard neonatal immunoprophylaxis, for the prevention of perinatal hepatitis B virus transmission. METHODS: A decision-tree model was created to estimate the cost-effectiveness of maternal administration of either lamivudine or HBIG in the third trimester to prevent perinatal hepatitis B transmission compared with no maternal treatment. The model was first estimated for each treatment using overall transmission rates, and then stratified by maternal hepatitis B virus DNA viral load. RESULTS: The model estimated that for each 100 hepatitis B surface antigen positive pregnant women treated with lamivudine, 9.7 cases of chronic hepatitis B virus infections are prevented, with a cost-savings of $5,184 and 1.3 life-years gained per patient treated. For HBIG, 9.5 cases of chronic hepatitis B virus infections are prevented for each 100 pregnant women treated, with a cost-savings of $5,887 and 1.2 life-years gained per patient treated. Under baseline assumptions, lamivudine remains cost-saving unless the reduction in perinatal transmission is less than 18.5%, and HBIG remains cost-saving unless the reduction in perinatal transmission is less than 9.6%. CONCLUSION: In this decision analysis, administration of lamivudine or HBIG to hepatitis B surface antigen positive pregnant women for the prevention of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B is cost-savings across a wide range of assumptions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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 of telbivudine versus lamivudine for chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Chronic hepatitis B is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, leading to serious consequences if not properly treated. Six treatment options for chronic hepatitis B are currently provided by the Brazilian public health system. Telbivudine is a nucleoside analogue that is neither included in the Brazilian clinical protocol nor in the therapeutic guidelines for chronic hepatitis B. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telbivudine for the viewpoint of the Brazilian public system, comparing it to lamivudine. METHODS: A Markov model was used to project lifetime complications and costs of treatment with lamivudine or telbivudine for chronic hepatitis B in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. To evaluate disease progression, probabilities and utilities of virologic response, virologic resistance, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment, interruption of treatment, death and seroconversion were collected in systematic reviews. Costs were collected in DATASUS, ABC da Saúde and scientific literature. RESULTS: Higher rate of virologic response and seroconversion was obtained with telbivudine, and also higher values of quality adjusted life years. However lamivudine is associated with lower costs and also lower cost-effectiveness values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for telbivudine, when compared with lamivudine, were US$ 30,575 and US$ 40,457, respectively for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSION: In chronic hepatitis B lamivudine is a more cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy when compared with telbivudine.