7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-effectiveness analysis of dolutegravir plus backbone compared with raltegravir plus backbone, darunavir+ritonavir plus backbone and efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment naïve and experienced HIV-positive patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In January 2014, the European Medicines Agency issued a marketing authorization for dolutegravir (DTG), a second-generation integrase strand transfer inhibitor for HIV treatment. The study aimed at determining the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the use of DTG+backbone compared with raltegravir (RAL)+backbone, darunavir (DRV)+ritonavir(r)+backbone and efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine (EFV/TDF/FTC) in HIV-positive treatment-naïve patients and compared with RAL+backbone in treatment-experienced patients, from the Italian National Health Service’s point of view.

          Materials and methods

          A published Monte Carlo Individual Simulation Model (ARAMIS-DTG model) was used to perform the analysis. Patients pass through mutually exclusive health states (defined in terms of diagnosis of HIV with or without opportunistic infections [OIs] and cardiovascular disease [CVD]) and successive lines of therapy. The model considers costs (2014) and quality of life per monthly cycle in a lifetime horizon. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are dependent on OI, CVD, AIDS events, adverse events and antiretroviral therapies.

          Results

          In treatment-naïve patients, DTG dominates RAL; compared with DRV/r, the ICER obtained is of 38,586 €/QALY (6,170 €/QALY in patients with high viral load) and over EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG generates an ICER of 33,664 €/QALY. In treatment-experienced patients, DTG compared to RAL leads to an ICER of 12,074 €/QALY.

          Conclusion

          The use of DTG+backbone may be cost effective in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients compared with RAL+backbone and in treatment-naïve patients compared with DRV/r+backbone and EFV/TDF/FTC considering a threshold of 40,000 €/QALY.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dolutegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine for the treatment of HIV-1 infection.

          Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572), a once-daily, unboosted integrase inhibitor, was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in combination with other antiretroviral agents. Dolutegravir, in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, may provide a simplified regimen. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study involving adult participants who had not received previous therapy for HIV-1 infection and who had an HIV-1 RNA level of 1000 copies per milliliter or more. Participants were randomly assigned to dolutegravir at a dose of 50 mg plus abacavir-lamivudine once daily (DTG-ABC-3TC group) or combination therapy with efavirenz-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine once daily (EFV-TDF-FTC group). The primary end point was the proportion of participants with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48. Secondary end points included the time to viral suppression, the change from baseline in CD4+ T-cell count, safety, and viral resistance. A total of 833 participants received at least one dose of study drug. At week 48, the proportion of participants with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter was significantly higher in the DTG-ABC-3TC group than in the EFV-TDF-FTC group (88% vs. 81%, P=0.003), thus meeting the criterion for superiority. The DTG-ABC-3TC group had a shorter median time to viral suppression than did the EFV-TDF-FTC group (28 vs. 84 days, P<0.001), as well as greater increases in CD4+ T-cell count (267 vs. 208 per cubic millimeter, P<0.001). The proportion of participants who discontinued therapy owing to adverse events was lower in the DTG-ABC-3TC group than in the EFV-TDF-FTC group (2% vs. 10%); rash and neuropsychiatric events (including abnormal dreams, anxiety, dizziness, and somnolence) were significantly more common in the EFV-TDF-FTC group, whereas insomnia was reported more frequently in the DTG-ABC-3TC group. No participants in the DTG-ABC-3TC group had detectable antiviral resistance; one tenofovir DF-associated mutation and four efavirenz-associated mutations were detected in participants with virologic failure in the EFV-TDF-FTC group. Dolutegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine had a better safety profile and was more effective through 48 weeks than the regimen with efavirenz-tenofovir DF-emtricitabine. (Funded by ViiV Healthcare; SINGLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01263015 .).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study.

            Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity and a favourable safety profile. We compared dolutegravir with HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir, as initial treatment for adults with HIV-1. SPRING-2 is a 96 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began on Oct 19, 2010, at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Treatment-naive adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with HIV-1 infection and HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or greater were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily). Study drugs were given with coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 copies per mL or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Investigators were not masked to HIV-1 RNA results before randomisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. Main secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, incidence and severity of adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and genotypic or phenotypic evidence of resistance. Our primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227824. 411 patients were randomly allocated to receive dolutegravir and 411 to receive raltegravir and received at least one dose of study drug. At 48 weeks, 361 (88%) patients in the dolutegravir group achieved an HIV-1 RNA value of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 351 (85%) in the raltegravir group (adjusted difference 2·5%; 95% CI -2·2 to 7·1). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. The most common events were nausea (59 [14%] patients in the dolutegravir group vs 53 [13%] in the raltegravir group), headache (51 [12%] vs 48 [12%]), nasopharyngitis (46 [11%] vs 48 [12%]), and diarrhoea (47 [11%] in each group). Few patients had drug-related serious adverse events (three [<1%] vs five [1%]), and few had adverse events leading to discontinuation (ten [2%] vs seven [2%] in each group). CD4 cell counts increased from baseline to week 48 in both treatment groups by a median of 230 cells per μL. Rates of graded laboratory toxic effects were similar. We noted no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance in patients with virological failure on dolutegravir, whereas of the patients with virologic failure who received raltegravir, one (6%) had integrase treatment-emergent resistance and four (21%) had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors treatment-emergent resistance. The non-inferior efficacy and similar safety profile of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir means that if approved, combination treatment with once-daily dolutegravir and fixed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be an effective new option for treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. ViiV Healthcare. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 48 week results from the randomised open-label phase 3b study.

              Dolutegravir has been shown to be non-inferior to an integrase inhibitor and superior to a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). In FLAMINGO, we compared dolutegravir with darunavir plus ritonavir in individuals naive for antiretroviral therapy. In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study, HIV-1-infected antiretroviral therapy-naive adults with HIV-1 RNA concentration of 1000 copies per mL or more and no resistance at screening were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dolutegravir 50 mg once daily or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg once daily, with investigator-selected tenofovir-emtricitabine or abacavir-lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤100,000 or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) selection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL (Food and Drug Administration [FDA] snapshot algorithm) at week 48 with a 12% non-inferiority margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01449929. Recruitment began on Oct 31, 2011, and was completed on May 24, 2012, in 64 research centres in nine countries worldwide. Of 595 patients screened, 484 patients were included in the analysis (242 in each group). At week 48, 217 (90%) patients receiving dolutegravir and 200 (83%) patients receiving darunavir plus ritonavir had HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 7·1%, 95% CI 0·9-13·2), non-inferiority and on pre-specified secondary analysis dolutegravir was superior (p=0·025). Confirmed virological failure occurred in two (<1%) patients in each group; we recorded no treatment-emergent resistance in either group. Discontinuation due to adverse events or stopping criteria was less frequent for dolutegravir (four [2%] patients) than for darunavir plus ritonavir (ten [4%] patients) and contributed to the difference in response rates. The most commonly reported (≥10%) adverse events were diarrhoea (dolutegravir 41 [17%] patients vs darunavir plus ritonavir 70 [29%] patients), nausea (39 [16%] vs 43 [18%]), and headache (37 [15%] vs 24 [10%]). Patients receiving dolutegravir had significantly fewer low-density lipoprotein values of grade 2 or higher (11 [2%] vs 36 [7%]; p=0·0001). Once-daily dolutegravir was superior to once-daily darunavir plus ritonavir. Once-daily dolutegravir in combination with fixed-dose NRTIs represents an effective new treatment option for HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive patients. ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-6336
                1178-203X
                2017
                29 June 2017
                : 13
                : 787-797
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Research on Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, LIUC – Università Cattaneo, Castellanza, Varese, Italy
                [2 ]School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [3 ]First and Second Divisions of Infectious Diseases, “Luigi Sacco” Hospital, Milan, Italy
                [4 ]School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [5 ]National Institute for Infectious Diseases “L Spallanzani”, Rome
                [6 ]Department of Infectious Diseases, San Raffaele Scientific Institute
                [7 ]Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, A Manzoni Hospital, Lecco, Italy
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Umberto Restelli, Centre for Research on Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, LIUC – Università Cattaneo, Corso Matteotti 22, 21053 Castellanza, Varese, Italy, Tel +39 0331 572346, Fax +39 0331 572513, Email urestelli@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                tcrm-13-787
                10.2147/TCRM.S135972
                5499774
                © 2017 Restelli et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Medicine

                cost-utility analysis, antiretroviral therapy, economic evaluation, costs

                Comments

                Comment on this article