Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of first-line antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected African children less than 3 years of age.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The International Maternal, Pediatric, and Adolescent Clinical Trials P1060 trial demonstrated superior outcomes for HIV-infected children less than 3 years old initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) with lopinavir/ritonavir compared to nevirapine, but lopinavir/ritonavir is four-fold costlier.

Design/methods

We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)-Pediatric model, with published and P1060 data, to project outcomes under three strategies: no ART; first-line nevirapine (with second-line lopinavir/ritonavir); and first-line lopinavir/ritonavir (second-line nevirapine). The base-case examined South African children initiating ART at age 12 months; sensitivity analyses varied all key model parameters. Outcomes included life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs; dollars/year of life saved ($/YLS)]. We considered interventions with ICERs less than 1× per-capita gross domestic product (South Africa: $7500)/YLS as 'very cost-effective,' interventions with ICERs below 3× gross domestic product/YLS as 'cost-effective,' and interventions leading to longer life expectancy and lower lifetime costs as 'cost-saving'.

Results

Projected life expectancy was 2.8 years with no ART. Both ART regimens markedly improved life expectancy and were very cost-effective, compared to no ART. First-line lopinavir/ritonavir led to longer life expectancy (28.8 years) and lower lifetime costs ($41 350/person, from lower second-line costs) than first-line nevirapine (27.6 years, $44 030). First-line lopinavir/ritonavir remained cost-saving or very cost-effective compared to first-line nevirapine unless: liquid lopinavir/ritonavir led to two-fold higher virologic failure rates or 15-fold greater costs than in the base-case, or second-line ART following first-line lopinavir/ritonavir was very ineffective.

Conclusions

On the basis of P1060 data, first-line lopinavir/ritonavir leads to longer life expectancy and is cost-saving or very cost-effective compared to first-line nevirapine. This supports WHO guidelines, but increasing access to pediatric ART is critical regardless of the regimen used.

SUBMITTER: Ciaranello AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4536981 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundThe most recent World Health Organization (WHO) antiretroviral treatment guidelines recommend the inclusion of zidovudine (ZDV) or tenofovir (TDF) in first-line therapy. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with emphasis on emerging patterns of drug resistance upon treatment failure and their impact on second-line therapy.MethodsWe used a stochastic simulation of a generalized HIV-1 epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa to compare two strategies for first-line combination antiretroviral treatment including lamivudine, nevirapine and either ZDV or TDF. Model input parameters were derived from literature and, for the simulation of resistance pathways, estimated from drug resistance data obtained after first-line treatment failure in settings without virological monitoring. Treatment failure and cost effectiveness were determined based on WHO definitions. Two scenarios with optimistic (no emergence; base) and pessimistic (extensive emergence) assumptions regarding occurrence of multidrug resistance patterns were tested.ResultsIn the base scenario, cumulative proportions of treatment failure according to WHO criteria were higher among first-line ZDV users (median after six years 36% [95% simulation interval 32%; 39%]) compared with first-line TDF users (31% [29%; 33%]). Consequently, a higher proportion initiated second-line therapy (including lamivudine, boosted protease inhibitors and either ZDV or TDF) in the first-line ZDV user group 34% [31%; 37%] relative to first-line TDF users (30% [27%; 32%]). At the time of second-line initiation, a higher proportion (16%) of first-line ZDV users harboured TDF-resistant HIV compared with ZDV-resistant viruses among first-line TDF users (0% and 6% in base and pessimistic scenarios, respectively). In the base scenario, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) was US$83 when TDF instead of ZDV was used in first-line therapy (pessimistic scenario: US$ 315), which was below the WHO threshold for high cost effectiveness (US$ 2154).ConclusionsUsing TDF instead of ZDV in first-line treatment in resource-limited settings is very cost-effective and likely to better preserve future treatment options in absence of virological monitoring.

Project description:Lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for all HIV-infected children less than three years. However, little is known about its field implementation and effectiveness in West Africa. We assessed the 12-month response to lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in a cohort of West African children treated before the age of two years.HIV-1-infected, ART-naive except for a prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT), tuberculosis-free, and less than two years of age children with parent's consent were enrolled in a 12-month prospective therapeutic cohort with lopinavir/ritonavir ART and cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in Ouagadougou and Abidjan. Virological suppression (VS) at 12 months (viral load [VL] <500 copies/mL) and its correlates were assessed.Between May 2011 and January 2013, 156 children initiated ART at a median age of 13.9 months (interquartile range: 7.8-18.4); 63% were from Abidjan; 53% were girls; 37% were not exposed to any PMTCT intervention or maternal ART; mother was the main caregiver in 81%; 61% were classified World Health Organization Stage 3 to 4. After 12 months on ART, 11 children had died (7%), 5 were lost-to-follow-up/withdrew (3%), and VS was achieved in 109: 70% of children enrolled and 78% of those followed-up. When adjusting for country and gender, the access to tap water at home versus none (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-6.94), the mother as the main caregiver versus the father (aOR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.03-7.71), and the increase of CD4 percentage greater than 10% between inclusion and 6 months versus <10% (aOR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.05-6.18) were significantly associated with a higher rate of VS. At 12 months, 28 out of 29 children with VL ?1000 copies/mL had a resistance genotype test: 21 (75%) had ?1 antiretroviral (ARV) resistance (61% to lamivudine, 29% to efavirenz, and 4% to zidovudine and lopinavir/ritonavir), of which 11 (52%) existed before ART initiation.Twelve-month VS rate on lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART was high, comparable to those in Africa or high-income countries. The father as the main child caregiver and lack of access to tap water are risk factors for viral failure and justify a special caution to improve adherence in these easy-to-identify situations before ART initiation. Public health challenges remain to optimize outcomes in children with earlier ART initiation in West Africa.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, the routine age for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is 11 to 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 26 years for women and 21 years for men. U.S. vaccination policy on use of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in adult women and men is being reviewed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the added population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extending the current U.S. HPV vaccination program to women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years.DesignThe analysis used HPV-ADVISE (Agent-based Dynamic model for VaccInation and Screening Evaluation), an individual-based transmission dynamic model of HPV infection and associated diseases, calibrated to age-specific U.S. data.Data sourcesPublished data.Target populationWomen aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years in the United States.Time horizon100 years.PerspectiveHealth care sector.Intervention9-valent HPV vaccination.Outcome measuresHPV-associated outcomes prevented and cost-effectiveness ratios.Results of base-case analysisThe model predicts that the current U.S. HPV vaccination program will reduce the number of diagnoses of anogenital warts and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 and cases of cervical cancer and noncervical HPV-associated cancer by 82%, 80%, 59%, and 39%, respectively, over 100 years and is cost saving (vs. no vaccination). In contrast, extending vaccination to women and men aged 45 years is predicted to reduce these outcomes by an additional 0.4, 0.4, 0.2, and 0.2 percentage points, respectively. Vaccinating women and men up to age 30, 40, and 45 years is predicted to cost $830 000, $1 843 000, and $1 471 000, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year gained (vs. current vaccination).Results of sensitivity analysisResults were most sensitive to assumptions about natural immunity and progression rates after infection, historical vaccination coverage, and vaccine efficacy.LimitationUncertainty about the proportion of HPV-associated disease due to infections after age 26 years and about the level of herd effects from the current HPV vaccination program.ConclusionThe current HPV vaccination program is predicted to be cost saving. Extending vaccination to older ages is predicted to produce small additional health benefits and result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current recommendation.Primary funding sourceCenters for Disease Control and Prevention.