Search

Aim: Calculate time to first-line treatment failure, annual cost and cost-effectiveness of NNRTI versus PIboosted first-line HAART regimens in the UK, 1996-2006., Background: Population costs for HIV services are increasing in the UK and interventions need to be effective and efficient to reduce or stabilize costs. 2NRTIs + NNRTI regimens are cost-effective regimens for first-line HAART, but these regimens have not been compared with first-line PI(boosted) regimens., Methods: Times to first-line treatment failure and annual costs were calculated for first-line HAART regimens by CD4 count when starting HAART (2006 UK prices). Cost-effectiveness of 2NRTIs+NNRTI versus 2NRTIs+PI(boosted) regimens was calculated for four CD4 strata., Results: 55% of 5,541 people living with HIV (PLHIV) started HAART with CD4 count ≤ 200 cells/mm3, many of whom were Black Africans. Annual treatment cost decreased as CD4 count increased; most marked differences were observed between starting HAART with CD4 ≤ 200 cells/mm3 compared with CD4 count >200 cells/mm3. 2NRTI+PI(boosted) and 2NRTI+NNRTI regimens were the most effective regimens across the four CD4 strata; 2NRTI + NNRTI was cost-saving or cost-effective compared with 2NRTI + PI(boosted) regimens., Conclusion: To ensure more effective and efficient provision of HIV services, 2NRTI+NNRTI should be started as first-line HAART regimen at CD4 counts ≤ 350 cell/mm3, unless specific contra-indications exist. This will increase the number of PLHIV receiving HAART and will initially increase population costs of providing HIV services. However, starting PLHIV earlier on cost-effective regimens will maintain them in better health and use fewer health or social services, thereby generating fewer treatment and care costs, enabling them to remain socially and economically active members of society. This does raise a number of ethical issues, which will have to be acknowledged and addressed, especially in countries with limited resources.

Background: The protease inhibitors lopinavir and atazanavir are both recommended for treatment of HIV-infected patients. Considerable inter-individual variability in plasma concentration has been observed for both drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate which demographic factors and concomitant drugs are associated with lopinavir and atazanavir plasma concentration., Methods: Data from the Liverpool TDM (therapeutic drug monitoring) Registry were linked with the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (CHIC) study. For each patient, the first measurement of lopinavir (twice daily) or atazanavir [once daily, ritonavir boosted (/r) or unboosted] plasma concentration was included. Linear regression was used to evaluate the association of dose, gender, age, weight, ethnicity and concomitant antiretroviral drugs or rifabutin with log-transformed drug concentration, adjusted for time since last intake., Results: Data from 439 patients on lopinavir (69% 400 mg/r, 31% 533 mg/r; 3% concomitant rifabutin) and 313 on atazanavir (60% 300 mg/r, 32% 400 mg/r, 8% 400 mg) were included. Multivariable models revealed the following predictors for lopinavir concentration: weight (11% decrease per additional 10 kg; P = 0.001); dose (25% increase for 533 mg/r; P = 0.024); and rifabutin (116% increase; P < 0.001). For atazanavir the predictors were dose (compared with 300 mg/r: 40% increase for 400 mg/r, 67% decrease for 400 mg; overall P < 0.001) and efavirenz (32% decrease; P = 0.016) but not tenofovir (P = 0.54)., Conclusions: This analysis confirms that efavirenz decreases atazanavir concentrations, and there was a negative association of weight and lopinavir concentrations. The strong impact of rifabutin on lopinavir concentration should be studied further.

Background: We describe the patterns of antiretroviral drug use at treatment initiation from 1996 to 2005 in a large UK multicentre cohort., Methods: We examined trends over time and across 10 clinical sites in stage of disease and type of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with the CD4 cell count at ART initiation, and with the choice of a protease inhibitor (PI) over a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), and use of nevirapine over efavirenz., Results: A total of 14 252 patients initiated ART, of whom 54% had a CD4 count <200 cells/microL. The most important predictors of starting ART at a lower CD4 cell count were being male, nonwhite, and heterosexual or an injecting drug user (P<0.0001). Among those starting ART, the use of highly active ART increased from 23% in 1996 to >96% from 2000 onwards. There were differences over time and across the clinics in the use of PIs vs. NNRTIs, in the choice of specific PIs, NNRTIs and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone, and in the rate at which prescribing practices changed., Conclusions: Clinic site and calendar year were important determinants of choice of drug at ART initiation, whereas clinical and demographic characteristics were more important in influencing the CD4 cell count at initiation of ART.