10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The clinical and economic impact of genotype testing at first-line antiretroviral therapy failure for HIV-infected patients in South Africa.

      Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
      Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, genetics, prevention & control, Adult, Anti-HIV Agents, economics, therapeutic use, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Genotype, HIV, HIV Infections, drug therapy, Health Resources, Humans, Models, Theoretical, South Africa, Treatment Failure

      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

          In resource-limited settings, genotype testing at virologic failure on first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) may identify patients with wild-type (WT) virus. After adherence counseling, these patients may safely and effectively continue first-line ART, thereby delaying more expensive second-line ART. We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications International model of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease to simulate a South African cohort of HIV-infected adults at first-line ART failure. Two strategies were examined: no genotype vs genotype, assuming availability of protease inhibitor-based second-line ART. Model inputs at first-line ART failure were mean age 38 years, mean CD4 173/µL, and WT virus prevalence 20%; genotype cost was $300 per test and delay to results, 3 months. Outcomes included life expectancy, per-person costs (2010 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (dollars per years of life saved [YLS]). No genotype had a projected life expectancy of 106.1 months, which with genotype increased to 108.3 months. Per-person discounted lifetime costs were $16 360 and $16 540, respectively. Compared to no genotype, genotype was very cost-effective, by international guidance, at $900/YLS. The cost-effectiveness of genotype was sensitive to prevalence of WT virus (very cost-effective when prevalence ≥ 12%), CD4 at first-line ART failure, and ART efficacy. Genotype-associated delays in care ≥ 5 months decreased survival and made no genotype the preferred strategy. When the test cost was <$100, genotype became cost-saving. Genotype resistance testing at first-line ART failure is very cost-effective in South Africa. The cost-effectiveness of this strategy will depend on prevalence of WT virus and timely response to genotype results.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article