Dataset Information

Clinical Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Genotype Testing at Human Immunodeficiency Virus Diagnosis in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

US guidelines recommend genotype testing at human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis ("baseline genotype") to detect transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), and protease inhibitors. With integrase strand inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimens now recommended as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), the of baseline genotypes is uncertain.

Methods

We used the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications model to examine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of baseline genotype compared to no baseline genotype for people starting ART with dolutegravir (DTG) and an NRTI pair. For people with no TDR (83.8%), baseline genotype does not alter regimen selection. Among people with transmitted NRTI resistance (5.8%), baseline genotype guides NRTI selection and informs subsequent ART after adverse events (DTG AEs, 14%). Among people with transmitted NNRTI resistance (7.2%), baseline genotype influences care only for people with DTG AEs switching to NNRTI-based regimens. The 48-week virologic suppression varied (40%-92%) depending on TDR. Costs included $320/genotype and $2500-$3000/month for ART.

Results

Compared to no baseline genotype, baseline genotype resulted in <1 additional undiscounted quality-adjusted life-day (QALD), cost an additional $500/person, and was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $420 000/quality-adjusted life-year). In univariate sensitivity analysis, clinical benefits of baseline genotype never exceeded 5 QALDs for all newly diagnosed people with HIV. Baseline genotype was cost-effective at current TDR prevalence only under unlikely conditions, eg, DTG-based regimens achieving ?50% suppression of transmitted NRTI resistance.

Conclusions

With INSTI-based first-line regimens in the United States, baseline genotype offers minimal clinical benefit and is not cost-effective.

SUBMITTER: Hyle EP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7318781 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveHIV genotype-resistance testing can help identify more effective antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens for patients, substantially increasing the likelihood of viral suppression and immune recovery. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-resistance testing before first-line ART initiation in Brazil.DesignWe used a previously published microsimulation model of HIV disease (CEPAC-International) and data from Brazil to compare the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of initial genotype testing (Genotype) with no initial genotype testing (No genotype).MethodsModel parameters were derived from the HIV Clinical Cohort at the Evandro Chagas Clinical Research Institute and from published data, using Brazilian sources whenever possible. Baseline patient characteristics included 69% male, mean age of 36 years (SD, 10 years), mean CD4 count of 347 per microliter (SD, 300/µL) at ART initiation, annual ART costs from 2012 US $1400 to US $13,400, genotype test cost of US $230, and primary resistance prevalence of 4.4%. Life expectancy and costs were discounted 3% per year. Genotype was defined as "cost-effective" compared with No Genotype if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than 3 times the 2012 Brazilian per capita GDP of US $12,300.ResultsCompared with No genotype, Genotype increased life expectancy from 18.45 to 18.47 years and reduced lifetime cost from US $45,000 to $44,770; thus, in the base case, Genotype was cost saving. Genotype was cost-effective at primary resistance prevalence as low as 1.4% and remained cost-effective when subsequent-line ART costs decreased to 30% of baseline value. Cost-inefficient results were observed only when simultaneously holding multiple parameters to extremes of their plausible ranges.ConclusionsGenotype-resistance testing in ART-naive individuals in Brazil will improve survival and decrease costs and should be incorporated into HIV treatment guidelines in Brazil.

Project description:BackgroundWest Nile virus (WNV) is endemic in the US, varying seasonally and by geographic region. WNV can be transmitted by blood transfusion, and mandatory screening of blood for WNV was recently introduced throughout the US. Guidelines for selecting cost-effective strategies for screening blood for WNV do not exist.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for screening blood for WNV using a computer-based mathematical model, and using data from prospective studies, retrospective studies, and published literature. For three geographic areas with varying WNV-transmission intensity and length of transmission season, the model was used to estimate lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios associated with alternative screening strategies in a target population of blood-transfusion recipients. We compared the status quo (baseline screening using a donor questionnaire) to several strategies which differed by nucleic acid testing of either pooled or individual samples, universal versus targeted screening of donations designated for immunocompromised patients, and seasonal versus year-long screening. In low-transmission areas with short WNV seasons, screening by questionnaire alone was the most cost-effective strategy. In areas with high levels of WNV transmission, seasonal screening of individual samples and restricting screening to blood donations designated for immunocompromised recipients was the most cost-effective strategy. Seasonal screening of the entire recipient pool added minimal clinical benefit, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeding USD 1.7 million per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Year-round screening offered no additional benefit compared to seasonal screening in any of the transmission settings.ConclusionsIn areas with high levels of WNV transmission, seasonal screening of individual samples and restricting screening to blood donations designated for immunocompromised recipients is cost saving. In areas with low levels of infection, a status-quo strategy using a standard questionnaire is cost-effective.