Dataset Information

Increasing the use of second-line therapy is a cost-effective approach to prevent the spread of drug-resistant HIV: a mathematical modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Earlier antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation reduces HIV-1 incidence. This benefit may be offset by increased transmitted drug resistance (TDR), which could limit future HIV treatment options. We analyze the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce TDR.

Methods

We develop a deterministic mathematical model representing Kampala, Uganda, to predict the prevalence of TDR over a 10-year period. We then compare the impact on TDR and cost-effectiveness of: (1) introduction of pre-therapy genotyping; (2) doubling use of second-line treatment to 80% (50-90%) of patients with confirmed virological failure on first-line ART; and (3) increasing viral load monitoring from yearly to twice yearly. An intervention can be considered cost-effective if it costs less than three times the gross domestic product per capita per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, or less than $3420 in Uganda.

Results

The prevalence of TDR is predicted to rise from 6.7% (interquartile range [IQR] 6.2-7.2%) in 2014, to 6.8% (IQR 6.1-7.6%), 10.0% (IQR 8.9-11.5%) and 11.1% (IQR 9.7-13.0%) in 2024 if treatment is initiated at a CD4 <350, <500, or immediately, respectively. The absolute number of TDR cases is predicted to decrease 4.4-8.1% when treating earlier compared to treating at CD4 <350 due to the preventative effects of earlier treatment. Most cases of TDR can be averted by increasing second-line treatment (additional 7.1-10.2% reduction), followed by increased viral load monitoring (<2.7%) and pre-therapy genotyping (<1.0%). Only increasing second-line treatment is cost-effective, ranging from $1612 to $2234 (IQR $450-dominated) per QALY gained.

Conclusions

While earlier treatment initiation will result in a predicted increase in the proportion of patients infected with drug-resistant HIV, the absolute numbers of patients infected with drug-resistant HIV is predicted to decrease. Increasing use of second-line treatment to all patients with confirmed failure on first-line therapy is a cost-effective approach to reduce TDR. Improving access to second-line ART is therefore a major priority.

SUBMITTER: Nichols BE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4260459 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Increasing the use of second-line therapy is a cost-effective approach to prevent the spread of drug-resistant HIV: a mathematical modelling study.

Nichols Brooke E BE Sigaloff Kim C E KC Kityo Cissy C Hamers Raph L RL Baltussen Rob R Bertagnolio Silvia S Jordan Michael R MR Hallett Timothy B TB Boucher Charles A B CA de Wit Tobias F Rinke TF van de Vijver David A M C DA

Journal of the International AIDS Society 20141205

<h4>Introduction</h4>Earlier antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation reduces HIV-1 incidence. This benefit may be offset by increased transmitted drug resistance (TDR), which could limit future HIV treatment options. We analyze the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce TDR.<h4>Methods</h4>We develop a deterministic mathematical model representing Kampala, Uganda, to predict the prevalence of TDR over a 10-year period. We then compare the impact on TDR and cost-eff ...[more]

PMID: 25491351

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe number of patients in need of second-line antiretroviral drugs is increasing in sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to project the need of second-line antiretroviral therapy in adults in sub-Saharan Africa up to 2030.MethodsWe developed a simulation model for HIV and applied it to each sub-Saharan African country. We used the WHO country intelligence database to estimate the number of adult patients receiving antiretroviral therapy from 2005 to 2014. We fitted the number of adult patients receiving antiretroviral therapy to observed estimates, and predicted first-line and second-line needs between 2015 and 2030. We present results for sub-Saharan Africa, and eight selected countries. We present 18 scenarios, combining the availability of viral load monitoring, speed of antiretroviral scale-up, and rates of retention and switching to second-line. HIV transmission was not included.FindingsDepending on the scenario, 8·7-25·6 million people are expected to receive antiretroviral therapy in 2020, of whom 0·5-3·0 million will be receiving second-line antiretroviral therapy. The proportion of patients on treatment receiving second-line therapy was highest (15·6%) in the scenario with perfect retention and immediate switching, no further scale-up, and universal routine viral load monitoring. In 2030, the estimated range of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy will remain constant, but the number of patients receiving second-line antiretroviral therapy will increase to 0·8-4·6 million (6·6-19·6%). The need for second-line antiretroviral therapy was two to three times higher if routine viral load monitoring was implemented throughout the region, compared with a scenario of no further viral load monitoring scale-up. For each monitoring strategy, the future proportion of patients receiving second-line antiretroviral therapy differed only minimally between countries.InterpretationDonors and countries in sub-Saharan Africa should prepare for a substantial increase in the need for second-line drugs during the next few years as access to viral load monitoring improves. An urgent need exists to decrease the costs of second-line drugs.FundingWorld Health Organization, Swiss National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundCountries have restricted international arrivals to delay the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). These measures carry a high economic and social cost, and might have little effect on COVID-19 epidemics if there are many more cases resulting from local transmission compared with imported cases. Our study aims to investigate the extent to which imported cases contribute to local transmission under different epidemic conditions.MethodsTo inform decisions about international travel restrictions, we calculated the ratio of expected COVID-19 cases from international travel (assuming no travel restrictions) to expected cases arising from internal spread, expressed as a proportion, on an average day in May and September, 2020, in each country. COVID-19 prevalence and incidence were estimated using a modelling framework that adjusts reported cases for under-ascertainment and asymptomatic infections. We considered different travel scenarios for May and September, 2020: an upper bound with estimated travel volumes at the same levels as May and September, 2019, and a lower bound with estimated travel volumes adjusted downwards according to expected reductions in May and September, 2020. Results were interpreted in the context of local epidemic growth rates.FindingsIn May, 2020, imported cases are likely to have accounted for a high proportion of total incidence in many countries, contributing more than 10% of total incidence in 102 (95% credible interval 63-129) of 136 countries when assuming no reduction in travel volumes (ie, with 2019 travel volumes) and in 74 countries (33-114) when assuming estimated 2020 travel volumes. Imported cases in September, 2020, would have accounted for no more than 10% of total incidence in 106 (50-140) of 162 countries and less than 1% in 21 countries (4-71) when assuming no reductions in travel volumes. With estimated 2020 travel volumes, imported cases in September, 2020, accounted for no more than 10% of total incidence in 125 countries (65-162) and less than 1% in 44 countries (8-97). Of these 44 countries, 22 (2-61) had epidemic growth rates far from the tipping point of exponential growth, making them the least likely to benefit from travel restrictions.InterpretationCountries can expect travellers infected with SARS-CoV-2 to arrive in the absence of travel restrictions. Although such restrictions probably contribute to epidemic control in many countries, in others, imported cases are likely to contribute little to local COVID-19 epidemics. Stringent travel restrictions might have little impact on epidemic dynamics except in countries with low COVID-19 incidence and large numbers of arrivals from other countries, or where epidemics are close to tipping points for exponential growth. Countries should consider local COVID-19 incidence, local epidemic growth, and travel volumes before implementing such restrictions.FundingWellcome Trust, UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, European Commission, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether a single optimal vaccination strategy exists across countries to deal with a future influenza pandemic by comparing the cost effectiveness of different strategies in various pandemic scenarios for three European countries.DesignEconomic and epidemic modelling study.SettingsGeneral populations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.Data sourcesCountry specific patterns of social contact and demographic data.ModelAn age structured susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered transmission model that describes how an influenza A virus will spread in the populations of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.InterventionsComparison of four vaccination strategies: no vaccination, blanket vaccination, vaccination of elderly people (≥ 65 years), and vaccination of high transmitters (5-19 years). The four strategies were evaluated for scenarios in which a vaccine became available early or at the peak of the pandemic, and in which either everyone was initially susceptible or older age groups had pre-existing immunity.Main outcome measureCost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsAll vaccination strategies were cost effective (incremental cost per QALY gained, comparing intervention with non-intervention). In scenarios where the vaccine became available at the peak of the pandemic and there was pre-existing immunity among elderly people the incremental cost effectiveness ratios for vaccinating high transmitters were €7325 (£5815; $10,470) per QALY gained for Germany, €10,216 per QALY gained for the Netherlands, and €7280 per QALY gained for the United Kingdom. The most cost effective strategy not only differed across the pandemic scenarios but also between countries. Specifically, when the vaccine was available early in the pandemic and there was no pre-existing immunity, in Germany it would be most cost effective to vaccinate elderly people ( €940 per QALY gained), whereas it would be most cost effective to vaccinate high transmitters in both the Netherlands (€525 per QALY gained) and the United Kingdom (€163 per QALY gained). This difference in optimal strategies was due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the countries: Germany has a significantly higher proportion of elderly people compared with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.ConclusionsNo single vaccination strategy was most cost effective across countries. With aging populations, pre-existing immunity in particular could be of crucial importance for the cost effectiveness of options to mitigate a future influenza pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundChlamydia is the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infection in Scotland, and is associated with potentially serious reproductive outcomes, including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and tubal factor infertility (TFI) in women. Chlamydia testing in Scotland is currently targeted towards symptomatic individuals, individuals at high risk of existing undetected infection, and young people. The cost-effectiveness of testing and treatment to prevent PID and TFI in Scotland is uncertain.MethodsA compartmental deterministic dynamic model of chlamydia infection in 15-24 year olds in Scotland was developed. The model was used to estimate the impact of a change in testing strategy from baseline (16.8% overall testing coverage; 0.4 partners notified and tested/treated per treated positive index) on PID and TFI cases. Cost-effectiveness calculations informed by best-available estimates of the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to PID and TFI were also performed.ResultsIncreasing overall testing coverage by 50% from baseline to 25.2% is estimated to result in 21% fewer cases in young women each year (PID: 703 fewer; TFI: 88 fewer). A 50% decrease to 8.4% would result in 20% more PID (669 additional) and TFI (84 additional) cases occurring annually. The cost per QALY gained of current testing activities compared to no testing is £40,034, which is above the £20,000-£30,000 cost-effectiveness threshold. However, calculations are hampered by lack of reliable data. Any increase in partner notification from baseline would be cost-effective (incremental cost per QALY gained for a partner notification efficacy of 1 compared to baseline: £5,119), and would increase the cost-effectiveness of current testing strategy compared to no testing, with threshold cost-effectiveness reached at a partner notification efficacy of 1.5. However, there is uncertainty in the extent to which partner notification is currently done, and hence the amount by which it could potentially be increased.ConclusionsCurrent chlamydia testing strategy in Scotland is not cost-effective under the conservative model assumptions applied. However, with better data enabling some of these assumptions to be relaxed, current coverage could be cost-effective. Meanwhile, increasing partner notification efficacy on its own would be a cost-effective way of preventing PID and TFI from current strategy.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare quantitatively different recommended goals for cholesterol-lowering treatment in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).DesignOutcomes at pretreatment low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations from 2 to 5 mmol/L and 10-year ASCVD risk from 5% to 30% were modelled, using the decrease in risk ratio per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol derived from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cholesterol-lowering medication.Data sourceSummary statistics from 26 RCTs comparing treatment versus placebo or less versus more effective treatment and 12 RCTs in which statin was compared with a higher dose of the same statin or with a similar statin dose to which an adjunctive cholesterol-lowering drug was added.SettingThe different recommended goals are: (1) LDL cholesterol≤2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL); (2) LDL cholesterol≤1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL); (3) non-high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol decrease of ≥40%; or (4) LDL cholesterol≤1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) or decreased by ≥50% whichever is lower.ParticipantsRCT participants.InterventionsStatins alone or in combination with ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors.Main outcome measuresFor each of the recommended therapeutic goals, our primary outcome was the number of events prevented per 100 people treated for 10 years (N100) and the number of needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one event over 10 years.ResultsAt pretreatment LDL cholesterol 4-5 mmol/L, all four goals provided similar benefit with N100 1.47-16.45 (NNT 6-68), depending on ASCVD risk and pretreatment LDL cholesterol. With initial LDL cholesterol in the range 2-3 mmol/L, the target of 2.6 mmol/L was the least effective with N100 between 0 and 2.84 (NNT 35-infinity). The goal of 1.8 mmol/L was little better. However, reductions in non-HDL cholesterol by ≥40% or of LDL cholesterol to 1.8 mmol/L and/or by 50%, whichever is lower, were more effective, delivering N100 of between 0.9 and 9.33 (NNT 11-111). Percentage decreases in LDL cholesterol or non-HDL cholesterol concentration are more effective targets than absolute change in concentration in people with initial values of <4 mmol/L.ConclusionsThe LDL cholesterol target of 1.8 mmol/L is most effective when initial LDL cholesterol is >4 mmol/L. The time has probably come for the LDL cholesterol goal of <2.6 mmol/L to be abandoned.

Dataset Information

Increasing the use of second-line therapy is a cost-effective approach to prevent the spread of drug-resistant HIV: a mathematical modelling study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Increasing the use of second-line therapy is a cost-effective approach to prevent the spread of drug-resistant HIV: a mathematical modelling study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets