Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:While dolutegravir has been added by WHO as a preferred second-line option for the treatment of HIV infection, boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based regimens are still needed as alternative second-line options. Identifying optimal bPI-based second-line combinations is essential, given associated high costs and funding constraints in low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of three alternative bPI-based second-line regimens in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal. METHODS:We used data collected over 2010-2015 in the 2LADY trial/post-trial cohort. Patients with first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine?+?lopinavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC LPV/r; arm A), abacavir?+?didanosine?+?lopinavir/ritonavir (arm B), or tenofovir/emtricitabine?+?darunavir/ritonavir (arm C). Costs (US dollars, 2016), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each country over 24 months of follow-up and extrapolated to 5 years using a simulated patient-level Markov model. We assessed uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, scenarios and prices threshold analysis. RESULTS:In each country, over 24 months, arm A was significantly less costly than arms B and C (incremental costs ranging from US$410-$US721 and US$468-US$546 for B and C vs A, respectively) and offered similar health benefits (incremental QALY: -?0.138 to 0.023 and -?0.179 to 0.028, respectively). Over 5 years, arm A remained the least costly, health benefits not being significantly different between arms. Compared with arms B and C, in each study country, Arm A had a???95% probability of being cost-effective for a large range of cost-effectiveness thresholds, irrespective of the scenario considered. CONCLUSIONS:Using TDF/FTC LPV/r as a bPI-based second-line regimen provided the best economic value in the three study countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00928187.
SUBMITTER: Boyer S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7018873 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
ACCESS DATA