Dataset Information

The potential cost and benefits of raltegravir in simplified second-line therapy among HIV infected patients in Nigeria and South Africa.

ABSTRACT: There is an urgent need to improve the evidence base for provision of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) following first-line virological failure. This is particularly the case in Sub-Saharan Africa where 70% of all people living with HIV/AIDS (PHA) reside. The aim of this study was to simulate the potential risks and benefits of treatment simplification in second-line therapy compared to the current standard of care (SOC) in a lower-middle income and an upper-middle income country in Sub-Saharan Africa.We developed a microsimulation model to compare outcomes associated with reducing treatment discontinuations between current SOC for second-line therapy in South Africa and Nigeria and an alternative regimen: ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) combined with raltegravir (RAL). We used published studies and collaborating sites to estimate efficacy, adverse effect and cost. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2011 USD per quality adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained.Reducing treatment discontinuations with LPV/r+RAL resulted in an additional 0.4 discounted QALYs and increased the undiscounted life expectancy by 0.8 years per person compared to the current SOC. The average incremental cost was $6,525 per treated patient in Nigeria and $4,409 per treated patient in South Africa. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $16,302/QALY gained and $11,085/QALY gained for Nigeria and South Africa, respectively. Our results were sensitive to the probability of ART discontinuation and the unit cost for RAL.The combination of raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir was projected to be cost-effective in South Africa. However, at its current price, it is unlikely to be cost-effective in Nigeria.

SUBMITTER: Schneider K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3574122 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The potential cost and benefits of raltegravir in simplified second-line therapy among HIV infected patients in Nigeria and South Africa.

Schneider Karen K Nwizu Chidi C Kaplan Richard R Anderson Jonathan J Wilson David P DP Emery Sean S Cooper David A DA Boyd Mark A MA

PloS one 20130215 2

<h4>Background</h4>There is an urgent need to improve the evidence base for provision of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) following first-line virological failure. This is particularly the case in Sub-Saharan Africa where 70% of all people living with HIV/AIDS (PHA) reside. The aim of this study was to simulate the potential risks and benefits of treatment simplification in second-line therapy compared to the current standard of care (SOC) in a lower-middle income and an upper-middle inc ...[more]

PMID: 23457450

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsUsing TDF/FTC LPV/r as a bPI-based second-line regimen provided the best economic value in the three study countries.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00928187.

Project description:WHO recommends ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in HIV-infected patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line treatment. Here, we aimed to provide more evidence for the choice of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and boosted protease inhibitor.ANRS 12169 is a 48-week, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial in three African cities, comparing efficacy and safety of three second-line regimens.Patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy with confirmed plasma HIV-1 viral load above 1000?copies/ml were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (control group as per WHO recommendations), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (ABC/ddI group) or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (DRV group) regimens. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma vral load below 50?copies/ml at week 48 in the modified intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority was pre-specified with a 15% margin.Of the 454 randomized patients, 451 were included in the analysis. Globally, 294 (65.2%) and 375 (83.2%) patients had viral load below 50 and 200?copies/ml, respectively, at week 48. The primary endpoint was achieved in 105 (69.1%) control group patients versus 92 (63.4%) in the ABC/ddI (difference 5.6%, 95% confidence interval -5.1 to 16.4) and 97 (63.0%) in the DRV (difference 6.1%, 95% confidence interval -4.5 to 16.7) groups (non-inferiority not shown). Overall, less number of patients with baseline viral load at least 100?000?copies/ml (n?=?122) had a viral load below 50?copies/ml at week 48 (37.7 versus 75.4%; P?<?0.001).The three second-line regimens obtained similar and satisfactory virologic control and confirmed the WHO recommendation (TDF/FTC/LPVr) as a valid option. However, the suboptimal response for patients with high viral load warrants research for improved strategies.

Dataset Information

The potential cost and benefits of raltegravir in simplified second-line therapy among HIV infected patients in Nigeria and South Africa.

Publications

The potential cost and benefits of raltegravir in simplified second-line therapy among HIV infected patients in Nigeria and South Africa.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets