Cost-Effectiveness of Tenofovir Instead of Zidovudine for Use in First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in Settings without Virological Monitoring

Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.23). 08/2012; 7(8):e42834. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042834
Source: PubMed


The most recent World Health Organization (WHO) antiretroviral treatment guidelines recommend the inclusion of zidovudine (ZDV) or tenofovir (TDF) in first-line therapy. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with emphasis on emerging patterns of drug resistance upon treatment failure and their impact on second-line therapy.
We used a stochastic simulation of a generalized HIV-1 epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa to compare two strategies for first-line combination antiretroviral treatment including lamivudine, nevirapine and either ZDV or TDF. Model input parameters were derived from literature and, for the simulation of resistance pathways, estimated from drug resistance data obtained after first-line treatment failure in settings without virological monitoring. Treatment failure and cost effectiveness were determined based on WHO definitions. Two scenarios with optimistic (no emergence; base) and pessimistic (extensive emergence) assumptions regarding occurrence of multidrug resistance patterns were tested.
In the base scenario, cumulative proportions of treatment failure according to WHO criteria were higher among first-line ZDV users (median after six years 36% [95% simulation interval 32%; 39%]) compared with first-line TDF users (31% [29%; 33%]). Consequently, a higher proportion initiated second-line therapy (including lamivudine, boosted protease inhibitors and either ZDV or TDF) in the first-line ZDV user group 34% [31%; 37%] relative to first-line TDF users (30% [27%; 32%]). At the time of second-line initiation, a higher proportion (16%) of first-line ZDV users harboured TDF-resistant HIV compared with ZDV-resistant viruses among first-line TDF users (0% and 6% in base and pessimistic scenarios, respectively). In the base scenario, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) was US$83 when TDF instead of ZDV was used in first-line therapy (pessimistic scenario: US$ 315), which was below the WHO threshold for high cost effectiveness (US$ 2154).
Using TDF instead of ZDV in first-line treatment in resource-limited settings is very cost-effective and likely to better preserve future treatment options in absence of virological monitoring.

Download full-text


Available from: Valentina Cambiano, Oct 05, 2015
26 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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<0·0001) and southern Africa (23% per year [7 to 42]; p=0·0049). No increase was noted for the other drug classes in any region. Our findings suggest a significant increase in prevalence of drug resistance over time since antiretroviral rollout in regions of sub-Saharan Africa; this rise is driven by NNRTI resistance in studies from east and southern Africa. The findings are of concern and draw attention to the need for enhanced surveillance and drug-resistance prevention efforts by national HIV treatment programmes. Nevertheless, estimated levels, although increasing, are not unexpected in view of the large expansion of antiretroviral treatment coverage seen in low-income and middle-income countries--no changes in antiretroviral treatment guidelines are warranted at the moment. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme.
    The Lancet 07/2012; 380(9849):1250-8. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61038-1 · 45.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Antiretroviral treatment (ART) is expanding to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected persons in low-middle income countries, thanks to a public health approach. With 3 available drug classes, 2 ART sequencing lines are programmatically foreseen. The emergence and transmission of viral drug resistance represents a challenge to the efficacy of ART. Knowledge of HIV-1 drug resistance selection associated with specific drugs and regimens and the consequent activity of residual drug options are essential in programming ART sequencing options aimed at preserving ART efficacy for as long as possible. This article determines optimal ART sequencing options for overcoming HIV-1 drug resistance in resource-limited settings, using currently available drugs and treatment monitoring opportunities. From the perspective of drug resistance and on the basis of limited virologic monitoring data, optimal sequencing seems to involve use of a tenofovir-containing nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line regimen, followed by a zidovudine-containing, protease inhibitor (PI)-based second-line regimen. Other options and their consequences are explored by considering within-class and between-class sequencing opportunities, including boosted PI monotherapies and future options with integrase inhibitors. Nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor resistance pathways in HIV-1 subtype C suggest an additional reason for accelerating stavudine phase out. Viral load monitoring avoids the accumulation of resistance mutations that significantly reduce the activity of next-line options. Rational use of resources, including broader access to viral load monitoring, will help ensure 3 lines of fully active treatment options, thereby increasing the duration of ART success.
    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 06/2013; 207 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S63-9. DOI:10.1093/infdis/jit109 · 6.00 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In sub-Saharan Africa, most HIV-infected patients receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) without virological monitoring. Longitudinal data on secondary resistance are rare. We conducted a prospective cohort study of HIV-1 infected adults initiating ART in three clinics using computerized monitoring systems. Patients had plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) tests at month 12 (M12) and month 24 (M24) following ART initiation, and HIV-1 resistance genotype tests if VL was detectable (≥300 copies/ml). Overall, 1,573 patients initiated ART with stavudine/zidovudine plus lamivudine plus nevirapine/efavirenz. At M12 and M24, 944 and 844 patients, respectively, remained in active follow-up. Among them: 25% (M12) and 27% (M24) had detectable VLs, and 12% (M12) and 19% (M24) had virus resistant to at least one antiretroviral drug, accounting for 54% (M12) and 75% (M24) of patients with detectable VLs. Among the resistant strains, 95% (M12) and 97% (M24) were resistant to lamivudine/emtricitabine, efavirenz and/or nevirapine, the frequency of thymidine analog mutations (TAMs) increased from 8.1% (M12) to 14.7% (M24) and etravirine resistance increased from 13.5% (M12) to 24.5% (M24). Of the patients with detectable VLs at M24, 25% still did not harbor resistant virus. Preventing mutations from emerging with adherence reinforcement in patients with detectable VLs remains important beyond M24. Switching therapy early in patients with resistance to 3TC/FTC and/or to NNRTIs to prevent extended resistance to NRTIs and etravirine resistance from occurring is also a major challenge.
    JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 06/2013; 64(2). DOI:10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182a009e4 · 4.56 Impact Factor
Show more