Search

Resumen Introduccion Las guias GESIDA proponen pautas preferentes de inicio de tratamiento antirretroviral en pacientes infectados por el VIH. El objetivo de este analisis es comparar los costes y la eficacia de darunavir/r QD frente a otros inhibidores de la proteasa (IP) potenciados recomendados por GESIDA en pacientes naive. Metodos Mediante un modelo de coste-eficacia se compararon los IP/r recomendados como pautas preferentes o alternativas en pacientes naive, junto con un tratamiento de base con 2 ITIAN. La eficacia se midio mediante la respuesta virologica (carga viral Resultados El modelo estimo que el inicio del tratamiento en naive con darunavir/r QD se mostro como la opcion preferente basada en un IP/r mas coste-eficaz. El coste medio del TARGA por paciente respondedor era menor para darunavir/r (13.420 €) que para atazanavir/r (14.000 €) o lopinavir/r (13.815 €). Se estimo que darunavir/r seria el IP preferente mas eficiente, mientras que atazanavir/r QD y lopinavir/r BID resultarian opciones «dominadas», situandose fuera de la frontera de la eficiencia. Partiendo de un presupuesto fijo de 10 millones de €, se estimo que la pauta de inicio con darunavir/r QD conseguiria un mayor numero de pacientes respondedores (745) que con atazanavir/r QD (714) o lopinavir/r BID (724). Al mismo tiempo, darunavir/r QD reduciria el numero de pacientes que fracasarian al tratamiento (150) en comparacion con atazanavir/r QD (172) o lopinavir/r (286). Conclusiones Segun este modelo, darunavir/r QD es el IP/r preferente mas coste-efectivo para el tratamiento de la infeccion por el VIH-1 basado en IP/r en pacientes naive en Espana.

GESIDA (AIDS Study Group) has proposed preferred regimens of antiretroviral treatment as initial therapy in HIV infected patients. The objective of this analysis is to compare the costs and effectiveness of darunavir/r QD and other ritonavir-boosted (/r) protease inhibitors (PIs) currently recommended in GESIDA guidelines for treatment-naïve patients.A cost-efficacy model compared the boosted PIs recommended as preferred or alternative treatment choices, each used with a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Efficacy was measured by 48-week virological response (viral load 50 copies/mL) adjusted by baseline viral load and CD4 cell count. To generate efficiency frontiers and cost-efficacy ratios, one-year antiretroviral therapy costs in Spain, and 48-week efficacy values were used.The model estimated that starting treatment with darunavir/r QD was the most cost-effective choice compared with the other preferred PI/r based therapies. The average cost per patient with a virological response was lower for darunavir/r QD (13,420€) than for atazanavir/r QD (14,000€), or lopinavir/r BID (13,815€). Among the preferred PI/r-based therapies, darunavir/r QD also was estimated to be the most efficient option for treatment-naïve patients. Atazanavir/r QD and lopinavir/r BID were found to be «dominated» by darunavir/r) and, consequently, were outside the efficiency frontier of PI/r-based first-line treatment. Given a fixed budget of 10 million euros for PI/r-based first-line therapy, the model estimated that darunavir/r QD would yield more responders (745) than atazanavir/r QD (714), or lopinavir/r BID (724). At the same time, darunavir/r QD would reduce the number of individuals failing treatment (150) compared with atazanavir/r QD (172) and lopinavir/r BID (286).In this model, darunavir/r QD was found to be the most cost-effective choice, among the preferred PI/r-based therapies recommended in the Spanish guidelines for treatment-naïve patients.

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of three different strategies for long-term monitoring of antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure and regimen switching in sub-Saharan Africa: a symptom-based approach, or monitoring of either CD4 cell counts or plasma viral load (pVL). Design: Markov model. Setting and participants: Hypothetical HIV-infected adult population who began first-line ART and subsequently had up to 6 years of follow-up. Main outcome measures: Total cost, life expectancy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: A symptom-based approach yielded a life expectancy of 64.0 months at a total cost of US$ 4028 per person. All laboratory-based strategies, at testing intervals of 6 or 12 months, were cost-saving and improved life expectancy, compared with a symptom-based approach. The life-expectancy gain was larger for pVL than for CD4 strategies at 6-monthly (2.3 and 0.9 months, respectively) and 12-monthly testing (2.0 and 0.8 months, respectively). Cost-savings of 6-monthly pVL or CD4 testing were similar (US$ 630 and 621, respectively), whereas 12-monthly CD4 cell counts were more cost-saving than 12-monthly pVL (US$ 1132 and 880, respectively). Testing every 12 months - rather than every 6 months - decreased the ICER by 102% for CD4 cell count and 67% for pVL. These findings were robust to a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses, but were sensitive to the specificity and costs of diagnostic tests. Conclusion: Additional diagnostic costs are balanced by cost-savings from avoiding unnecessary switching due to misdiagnosis of ART failure. Routine pVL monitoring may be preferred as a replacement for CD4 cell counts because of its additional public-health advantages in preventing drug-resistance, supporting adherence and reducing HIV transmission. (C) 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Summary Background The emergence and spread of high levels of HIV-1 drug resistance in resource-limited settings where combination antiretroviral treatment has been scaled up could compromise the effectiveness of national HIV treatment programmes. We aimed to estimate changes in the prevalence of HIV-1 drug resistance in treatment-naive individuals with HIV since initiation of rollout in resource-limited settings. Methods We did a systematic search for studies and conference abstracts published between January, 2001, and July, 2011, and included additional data from the WHO HIV drug resistance surveillance programme. We assessed the prevalence of drug-resistance mutations in untreated individuals with respect to time since rollout in a series of random-effects meta-regression models. Findings Study-level data were available for 26 102 patients from sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We recorded no difference between chronic and recent infection on the prevalence of one or more drug-resistance mutations for any region. East Africa had the highest estimated rate of increase at 29% per year (95% CI 15 to 45; p=0·0001) since rollout, with an estimated prevalence of HIV-1 drug resistance at 8 years after rollout of 7·4% (4·3 to 12·7). We recorded an annual increase of 14% (0% to 29%; p=0·054) in southern Africa and a non-significant increase of 3% (–0·9 to 16; p=0·618) in west and central Africa. There was no change in resistance over time in Latin America, and because of much country-level heterogeneity the meta-regression analysis was not appropriate for Asia. With respect to class of antiretroviral, there were substantial increases in resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) in east Africa (36% per year [21 to 52]; p

A comprehensive study comparing the costs and efficacies of darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg qd and the other ritonavir-boosted (/r) protease inhibitors (PIs) recommended for treatment-naïve individuals with HIV-1 infection would help health care decision makers identify the value of each boosted PI.A cost-efficacy model was developed to compare the five recommended boosted PIs, each used with a tenofovir-based nucleotide/nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Efficacy was measured by virologic response (ie, HIV-1 ribonucleic acid50 copies/mL) at 48 weeks, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent clinical trials. One-year antiretroviral therapy costs and 48-week efficacy values were used to generate the efficiency frontier and cost-efficacy ratios.Darunavir/r was the most efficacious boosted PI, with an incremental cost-efficacy ratio of $27,390 per additional individual with virologic response, compared with fosamprenavir/r. All other regimens were dominated. Darunavir/r combination therapy also had one of the lowest average costs ($26,287) per individual with virologic response, resulting in a maximal number of individuals successfully treated within a fixed budget. The model results were robust in variability and sensitivity analyses.Darunavir/r 800/100 mg qd combination therapy represents a cost-efficacious option for treatment-naïve individuals with HIV-1 infection in the United States.

Antiretroviral-therapy rollout in resource-poor countries is often associated with limited, if any, HIV-RNA monitoring. The effect of variable monitoring on the emergence of resistance after therapy with commonly used drug combinations was assessed by systematic review of studies reporting resistance in patients infected with HIV with a CD4 count of fewer than 200 cells per muL treated with two nucleoside analogues (including a thymidine analogue) and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. 8376 patients from eight cohorts and two prospective studies were analysed. Resistance at virological failure to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors at 48 weeks was 88.3% (95% CI 82.2-92.9) in infrequently monitored patients, compared with 61.0% (48.9-72.2) in frequently monitored patients (p

Background. Resistance to antiretroviral combination therapy is associated with increased mortality. Understanding the relative risks of emerging resistance to first-line therapy is of importance for both resource-rich and resource-poor settings.Methods. We undertook an overview of clinical trials of adults receiving first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which consisted of dual nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) combined with a third agent (either a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor [NNRTI] or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor [bPI]). The primary outcome measures were incidences of mutations conferring resistance to key drugs (NRTIs, NNRTIs, or bPIs) per trial at week 48. For meta-analysis, inverse-variance weighting was used to create estimates of overall incidences per group, with exact 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).Results. The study included 20 clinical trials that comprised 30 treatment arms and 7970 patients. Virologic failure at 48 weeks occurred in 4.9% (95% CI, 3.9%-6.1%) of NNRTI recipients, compared with 5.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-6.4%; P = .50 ) of bPI recipients. Of failures that were successfully genotyped, the M184V mutation in the HIV reverse transcriptase (lamivudine resistance) occurred in 35.3% (95% CI, 29.3%-41.6%) of patients who started NNRTI-based HAART, compared with 21.0% (95% CI, 14.4%-28.8%; P < .01) for those who received a bPI. For the K65R mutation in the HIV reverse transcriptase (multinucleoside resistance), incidences were 5.3% (95% CI, 2.4%-9.9%) and 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-3.6%;), respectively, in patients treated with non-zidovudine-containing regimens. Resistance to the third agent (an NNRTI or PI) occurred in 53% (95% CI, 46%-60%) and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0%-6.2%; P < .001) of such patients, respectively.Conclusions. Initial therapy with bPI-based regimens resulted in less resistance within and across drug classes. This finding is of particular significance for the developing world, where rates of resistance to NRTIs and NNRTIs at 48 weeks are much higher than has been seen in both cohorts and clinical trials in well-resourced countries.