Cost-effectiveness analysis of UGT1A1 genetic testing to inform antiretroviral prescribing in HIV disease
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Homozygosity for UGT1A1*28/*28 (Gilbert's variant) has been reported to be associated with atazanavir-associated hyperbilirubinemia and premature atazanavir discontinuation. We assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 testing to inform choice of an initial protease inhibitor-containing regimen in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve individuals. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) computer simulation model to project quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs (2009 US dollars) for atazanavir-based ART with or without UGT1A1 testing, using darunavir rather than atazanavir when indicated. We assumed UGT1A1-associated atazanavir discontinuation rates reported in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, a *28/*28 frequency of 14.9%, equal efficacy and cost of atazanavir and darunavir, and genetic assay cost of $107. Sensitivity analyses varied these parameters and hyperbilirubinemia impact on quality of life and loss to follow-up (LTFU). Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Initiating atazanavir-based ART at CD4 <500/µl without UGT1A1 testing had an average discounted life expectancy of 16.02 QALYs and $475,800 discounted lifetime cost. Testing for UGT1A1 increased QALYs by 0.49 per 10,000 patients tested, and was not cost-effective (>$100,000/QALY). Testing for UGT1A1 was cost-effective (<$100,000/QALY) if assay cost decreased to $10, or if avoiding hyperbilirubinemia by UGT1A1 testing reduced LTFU by 5%. If atazanavir and darunavir differed in cost or efficacy, testing for UGT1A1 was not cost-effective under any scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Testing for UGT1A1 may be cost-effective if assay cost is low and if testing improves retention in care, but only if the comparator ART regimens have the same drug cost and efficacy.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background. Long-acting antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) is currently under development and could improve outcomes for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals with poor daily ART adherence. Methods. We used a computer simulation model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 LA-ART strategies vs daily oral ART for all: (1) LA-ART for patients with multiple ART failures; (2) second-line LA-ART for those failing first-line therapy; and (3) first-line LA-ART for ART-naive patients. We calculated the maximum annual cost of LA-ART at which each strategy would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We assumed HIV RNA suppression on daily ART ranged from 0% to 91% depending on adherence, vs 91% suppression on LA-ART regardless of daily ART adherence. In sensitivity analyses, we varied adherence, efficacy of LA-ART and daily ART, and loss to follow-up. Results. Relative to daily ART, LA-ART increased overall life expectancy by 0.15-0.24 years, and by 0.51-0.89 years among poorly adherent patients, depending on the LA-ART strategy. LA-ART after multiple failures became cost-effective at an annual drug cost of $48 000; in sensitivity analysis, this threshold varied from $40 000-$70 000. Second-line LA-ART and first-line LA-ART became cost-effective at an annual drug cost of $26 000-$31 000 and $24 000-$27 000, vs $28 000 and $25 000 for current second-line and first-line regimens. Conclusions. LA-ART could improve survival of HIV patients, especially those with poor daily ART adherence. At an annual cost of $40 000-$70 000, LA-ART will offer good value for patients with multiple prior failures. To be a viable option for first- or second-line therapy, however, its cost must approach that of currently available regimens.Clinical Infectious Diseases 01/2015; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciu1159 · 9.42 Impact Factor