Search

Background: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide (F/TDF or F/TAF) is effective at preventing HIV when used consistently. There are limited real-world data that compare adherence [...]

Introduction: Long-term medication leads some people with HIV (PWH) to limited treatment options (LTO) due to multiple factors. The present study investigated the prevalence of PWH with LTO in Japan and their clinical characteristics, persistence, and adherence., Methods: PWH who received antiretroviral therapy (ART) between 2017 and 2022 were identified in the Medical Data Vision (MDV) Japanese claims database. PWH with LTO were defined as: 1) receiving regimens indicative for LTO or 2) having a complex treatment history (≥4 different core agents, ≥11 ART agents). Prevalence by calendar year, clinical characteristics, persistence, and adherence measured by the proportion of days covered (PDC) of ART were investigated., Results: A total of 5740 PWH were included, and 207 (3.6 %) were identified as LTO. Mean (SD) age was 50.3 (11.8) years, 148 (71.5 %) had evidence of AIDS-defining condition, and 25 (12.1 %) had hemophilia. The prevalence of PWH with LTO increased from 2.58 % in 2017 to 3.55 % in 2022. Persistence at 1 year was estimated as 70.3 % and mean PDC through 1 year was 96.7 %., Conclusion: Between the years 2017-2022, 3.6 % (approximately 200) Japanese PWH were identified as having LTO. The results of this analysis found clinical characteristics of PWH with LTO as older age and higher percentages with an AIDS-defining condition and hemophilia than the general HIV population. Low persistence indicates that treatment optimization is required in this population. These results will help health care providers to understand the clinical characteristics of PWH with LTO and may contribute to the establishment of appropriate treatment strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest KH, YP, AR, KL, DM, NT and TT are Gilead Sciences employees and stockholders. HG has received lecture fees from Gilead Sciences K.K., ViiV Healthcare K.K., and MSD K.K., (Copyright © 2024 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy, Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases, and Japanese Society for Infection Prevention and Control. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Heavily treatment-experienced (HTE) people with HIV (PWH) have limited treatment options owing to multidrug resistance (MDR). Lenacapavir (LEN) is indicated, in combination with other antiretrovirals, for the treatment of adults with MDR HIV-1 experiencing failure of their current antiretroviral regimen because of resistance, intolerance, or safety considerations., Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of LEN in combination with an optimized background regimen (OBR) vs alternative recently approved treatments for HTE PWH, fostemsavir (FTR)+OBR and ibalizumab (IBA)+OBR, for the treatment of PWH with MDR, from a mixed US health care payer perspective., Methods: A Markov state-transition model with a lifetime time horizon was developed. Transition probabilities between viral load categories were based on individual participant data from the CAPELLA trial for LEN+OBR and on relative efficacy parameters obtained from indirect treatment comparisons for comparators. Health state utilities were sourced from the literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs, drug administration costs, disease management costs, adverse event costs, AIDS-related event costs, and treatment switching costs and were sourced from red book costs, Medicare and Medicaid fees, and the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. The model was used to estimate total and incremental costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A deterministic and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, as well as scenario analyses, were performed to address elements of uncertainty in the model and to explore the robustness of the results., Results: Over a lifetime time horizon, LEN+OBR was associated with the highest absolute QALYs (9.41) and the greatest number of LYs (12.09) compared with FTR+OBR (QALYs: 8.75; LYs: 11.26) and IBA+OBR (QALYs: 8.36; LYs: 10.78). LEN+OBR was also associated with the lowest total lifetime costs of the 3 interventions (LEN+OBR: $1,441,122 [US dollars]; FTR+OBR: $1,504,986; IBA+OBR: $1,524,396) and therefore was dominant over both comparators in the base case. LEN+OBR remained dominant vs FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR across the range of scenarios tested and LEN+OBR had a 99% probability of being cost-effective compared with FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY., Conclusions: This economic evaluation demonstrated that LEN+OBR provides meaningful increases in QALYs and LYs, and is dominant over a lifetime time horizon, compared with FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR for the treatment of PWH with MDR in the United States.

Background: There is a need to understand health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with treatment-experienced people with HIV (PWH) switching treatment regimens., Objective: To describe HCRU and cost during lines of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for treatment-experienced PWH switching to or restarting guideline-recommended, integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based multitablet regimens and single-tablet regimens., Methods: This retrospective claims study used data from Optum Research Database (January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020) to identify lines of therapy (LOTs) for treatment-experienced adults who switched to or restarted INSTI-based regimens between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. The first LOT during the study period was included in the analysis. We examined all-cause HCRU and costs and HIV-related HCRU and combined costs to the health plan and direct patient costs by site of service and compared between INSTI-based regimens: bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) (single tablet) vs dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) (single tablet), dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (DTG+FTC/TAF) (multitablet), and dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DTG+FTC/TDF) (multitablet). Analysis of HCRU by site of service was conducted following inverse probability treatment weighting. Multivariable regression was conducted using a generalized linear model with stepwise covariate selection to estimate HIV-related medical costs and control for remaining differences after inverse probability treatment weighting., Results: 4,251 PWH were identified: B/F/TAF (n = 2,727; 64.2%), DTG/ABC/3TC (n = 898; 21.1%), DTG+FTC/TAF (n = 539; 12.7%), and DTG+FTC/TDF (n = 87; 2.1%). PWH treated with DTG+FTC/TAF had a significantly higher mean of all-cause ambulatory visits than PWH treated with B/F/TAF (1.8 vs 1.6, P < 0.001). A significantly smaller proportion of PWH treated with DTG/ABC/3TC had an all-cause ambulatory visit vs PWH treated with B/F/TAF (90.6% vs 93.9%, P < 0.001). All-cause total costs were not significantly different between regimens. Mean (SD) medical HIV-related costs per month during the LOT were not significantly different between B/F/TAF $699 (3,602), DTG/ABC/3TC $770 (3,469), DTG+FTC/TAF $817 (3,128), and DTG+FTC/TDF $3,570 (17,691). After further controlling for unbalanced measures, HIV-related medical costs during the LOT were higher (20%) but did not reach statistical significance for DTG/ABC/3TC (cost ratio = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.851-1.694; P = 0.299), 49% higher for DTG+FTC/TAF (cost ratio = 1.489, 95% CI = 1.018-2.179; P = 0.040), and almost 11 times greater for DTG+FTC/TDF (cost ratio = 10.759, 95% CI = 2.182-53.048; P = 0.004) compared with B/F/TAF., Conclusions: HIV-related medical costs during the LOT were lowest for PWH treated with INSTI-based single-tablet regimens. Simplifying treatment regimens may help PWH maintain lower health care costs.

Background: While global efforts have been made to prevent transmission of HIV, the epidemic persists. Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at high risk of infection. Despite evidence of its cost-effectiveness in other jurisdictions, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for MSM is neither approved nor reimbursed in Japan., Method: The cost-effectiveness analysis compared the use of once daily PrEP versus no PrEP among MSM over a 30-year time horizon from a national healthcare perspective. Epidemiological estimates for each of the 47 prefectures informed the model. Costs included HIV/AIDS treatment, HIV and testing for sexually transmitted infections, monitoring tests and consults, and hospitalization costs. Analyses included health and cost outcomes, as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reported as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for all of Japan and each prefecture. Sensitivity analyses were performed., Findings: The estimated proportion of HIV infections prevented with the use of PrEP ranged from 48% to 69% across Japan, over the time horizon. Cost savings due to lower monitoring costs and general medical costs were observed. Assuming 100% coverage, for Japan overall, daily use of PrEP costs less and was more effective; daily use of PrEP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of ¥5,000,000 per QALY in 32 of the 47 prefectures. Sensitivity analyses found that the ICER was most sensitive to the cost of PrEP., Interpretation: Compared to no PrEP use, once daily PrEP is a cost-effective strategy in Japanese MSM, reducing the clinical and economic burden associated with HIV.

Background: The opioid epidemic continues to generate a significant mental and physical health burden on patients, and claims the life of almost 150 Americans daily. Making matters worse, an increase in relapses and/or opioid-related deaths has been reported in more than 40 U.S. states since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Opioid use disorder (OUD) is one of the single most expensive disorders in the United States, generating average medical costs of $60B from just 2 million Americans diagnosed with the disorder. In commercial use since 2019, reSET-O is a non-drug, prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) that delivers evidence-based neurobehavioral treatment for OUD and helps overcome the barriers associated with access to care, stigma, and social distancing. Although shown to be cost effective and efficacious in clinical trials and real-world evidence studies, respectively, information on its value for money from a health utilities and cost per quality-adjusted life-year is needed to inform policy discussions. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of reSET-O on health utilities and assess its overall cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained vs. treatment-as-usual (TAU). Methods: Decision analytic model comparing reSET-O plus TAU to TAU alone (i.e. buprenorphine, face-to-face counseling, and contingency management) over 12 weeks. Clinical effectiveness data (abstinence and health utility) were obtained from a clinical trial, and resource utilization and cost data were adapted from a recent claims data analysis to reflect less frequent face-to-face counseling with the therapeutic. Results: The addition of reSET-O to TAU decreases total health care costs by -$131 and resulted in post-treatment utility values within population norms, with a corresponding gain of 0.003 QALYs. reSET-O when used adjunctively to TAU was economically dominant (less costly, more effective) vs. TAU alone. Conclusion: reSET-O is an economically-dominant adjunctive treatment for OUD and is associated with an overall reduction in total incremental cost vs TAU.