Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- Versus Generic Multiple-Tablet Regimens for Treatment of HIV-1 Infection in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The possibility of incorporating generics into combination antiretroviral therapy and breaking apart once-daily single-tablet regimens (STRs), may result in less efficacious medications and/or more complex regimens with the expectation of marked monetary savings. A modeling approach that assesses the merits of such policies in terms of lifelong costs and health outcomes using adherence and effectiveness data from real-world U.S. settings.

Methods

A comprehensive computer-based microsimulation model was developed to assess the lifetime health (life expectancy and quality adjusted life-years--QALYs) and economic outcomes in HIV-1 infected patients initiating STRs compared with multiple-table regimens including generic medications where possible (gMTRs). The STRs considered included tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and efavirenz or rilpivirine or elvitegravir/cobicistat. gMTRs substitutions included each counterpart to STRs, including generic lamivudine for emtricitabine and generic versus branded efavirenz.

Results

Life expectancy is estimated to be 1.301 years higher (discounted 0.619 QALY gain) in HIV-1 patients initiating a single-tablet regimen in comparison to a generic-based multiple-table regimen. STRs were associated with an average increment of $26,547.43 per patient in medication and $1,824.09 in other medical costs due to longer survival which were partially offset by higher inpatients costs ($12,035.61) with gMTRs treatment. Overall, STRs presented incremental lifetime costs of $16,335.91 compared with gMTRs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,383.82 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

STRs continue to represent good value for money under contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds despite substantial price reductions of generic medications in the U. S.

SUBMITTER: Sweet DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4725959 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 083 trial demonstrated the superiority of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) compared with oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).ObjectiveTo identify the maximum price premium (that is, greatest possible price differential) that society should be willing to accept for the additional benefits of CAB-LA over tenofovir-based PrEP among men who have sex with men and transgender women (MSM/TGW) in the United States.DesignSimulation, cost-effectiveness analysis.Data sourcesTrial and published data, including estimated HIV incidence (5.32, 1.33, and 0.26 per 100 person-years for off PrEP, generic F/TDF and branded emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF), and CAB-LA, respectively); 28% 6-year PrEP retention. Annual base-case drug costs: $360 and $16 800 for generic F/TDF and branded F/TAF. Fewer side effects with branded F/TAF versus generic F/TDF were assumed.Target population476 700 MSM/TGW at very high risk for HIV (VHR).Time horizon10 years.PerspectiveHealth care system.InterventionCAB-LA versus generic F/TDF or branded F/TAF for HIV PrEP.Outcome measuresPrimary transmissions, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2020 U.S. dollars), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; U.S. dollars per QALY), maximum price premium for CAB-LA versus tenofovir-based PrEP.Results of base-case analysisCompared with generic F/TDF (or branded F/TAF), CAB-LA increased life expectancy by 28 000 QALYs (26 000 QALYs) among those at VHR. Branded F/TAF cost more per QALY gained than generic F/TDF compared with no PrEP. At 10 years, CAB-LA could achieve an ICER of at most $100 000 per QALY compared with generic F/TDF at a maximum price premium of $3700 per year over generic F/TDF (CAB-LA price <$4100 per year).Results of sensitivity analysisIn a PrEP-eligible population at high risk for HIV, rather than at VHR (n = 1 906 800; off PrEP incidence: 1.54 per 100 person-years), CAB-LA could achieve an ICER of at most $100 000 per QALY versus generic F/TDF at a maximum price premium of $1100 per year over generic F/TDF (CAB-LA price <$1500 per year).LimitationUncertain clinical and economic benefits of averting future transmissions.ConclusionEffective oral PrEP limits the additional price society should be willing to pay for CAB-LA.Primary funding sourceFHI 360; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Reich HIV Scholar Award; and the Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholars Award.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include the multityrosine kinase inhibitors pazopanib and sunitinib. Both agents had similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the COMPARZ trial (Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib); however, the adverse event profiles of the 2 agents are different. In the PISCES trial (Patient Preference Study of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer), patients and physicians preferred pazopanib primarily because it offered better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and caused less fatigue.ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from a U.S. health care system perspective in the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC.MethodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (preprogression, postprogression, and dead), data from 2 randomized controlled trials of pazopanib versus sunitinib (COMPARZ and PISCES), and secondary sources were used to calculate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib. A time horizon of 37.5 months was used in the base case, consistent with the duration of follow-up used in the COMPARZ trial. The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier survival distributions for PFS and OS from the COMPARZ trial. Utility values were obtained from the PISCES trial. Costs were based on medical resource utilization data from the COMPARZ trial and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with sunitinib (pazopanib dominant). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was projected to be dominant in 69% of the simulations. The probability that pazopanib was more cost-effective than sunitinib was ≥ 90% for threshold values of cost-effectiveness between the range of $10,000-$160,000 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in all scenarios examined.ConclusionResults of this study suggest that pazopanib is cost-effective compared with sunitinib as the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC in the United States.

Project description:Combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) has evolved considerably over the past decades leading to a better control of human immunodeficiency virus replication. Recently, regimens have evolved so as to simplify dosing frequency and reduce pill burden to improve adherence. Several national and international guidelines suggest antiretroviral (ARV) regimen simplification as a method of improving adherence. Decreased cART adherence has been associated with both patient-related factors and regimen-related factors. Adherence rates are statistically higher when simpler, once-daily (OD) regimens are combined with smaller daily regimen pill burdens. The avoidance of selective non-adherence, where a patient takes part of a regimen but not the full regimen, is a further potential benefit offered by single-tablet regimens (STRs). Simplification of cART has been associated with a better quality of life (QoL). Although tempered by other factors, better adherence, higher QoL and patients' preferences are all key points which might combine to assure long-lasting efficacy and durability of cART. All studies underlined the favorable tolerability profile of newer STRs. Three STRs are currently available. Tenofovir (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC)/efavirenz (EFV) was the first OD complete ARV regimen available as a STR. TDF plus FTC/rilpivirine is a second-generation STR. The most recently approved STR, TDF plus FTC/cobicistat/elvitegravir, is the first non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based STR. All of them have shown excellent efficacy; safety and tolerability have been improved by more recent formulations. Several other STRs are anticipated both combining completely different drugs, abacavir (ABC) plus lamivudine (3TC)/dolutegravir, utilizing innovative formulations of older drugs, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or taking advance of bioequivalent drugs, lamivudine (3TC) plus ABC/EFV. The future challenge would be to develop completely alternative STRs (including for example protease inhibitors or new molecules) to extend the advantages of simplicity to heavily pre-treated individuals.