Article

First-line antiretroviral therapy after single-dose nevirapine exposure in South Africa: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the OCTANE trial

Division of Infectious Disease, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, 02114, USA.
AIDS (London, England) (Impact Factor: 6.56). 02/2011; 25(4):479-92. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283428cbe
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The OCTANE trial reports superior outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir vs. nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) among women previously exposed to single-dose nevirapine to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. However, lopinavir/ritonavir is 12 times costlier than nevirapine.
We used a computer model, with OCTANE and local data, to simulate HIV-infected, single-dose nevirapine-exposed women in South Africa. Outcomes of three alternative ART sequences were projected: no ART (for comparison), first-line nevirapine, and first-line lopinavir/ritonavir. OCTANE data included mean age (31 years) and CD4 cell count (135/μl); median time since single-dose nevirapine (17 months); and 24-week viral suppression efficacy for first-line ART (nevirapine: 85%, lopinavir/ritonavir: 97%). Outcomes included life expectancy, per-person costs (2008 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
With no ART, projected life expectancy was 1.6 years and per-person cost was $2980. First-line nevirapine increased life expectancy (15.2 years) and cost ($13 990; cost-effectiveness ratio: $810/year of life saved versus no ART). First-line lopinavir/ritonavir further increased life expectancy to 16.3 years and cost to $15 630 (cost-effectiveness ratio: $1520/year of life saved versus first-line nevirapine). First-line lopinavir/ritonavir cost-effectiveness was sensitive to prevalence of nevirapine-resistant virus at ART initiation, time from single-dose nevirapine exposure to ART initiation (6-12, 12-24, or >24 months), second-line ART efficacies, and outcomes after 24 weeks on ART.
First-line lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART is very cost-effective in single-dose nevirapine-exposed, South African women similar to OCTANE participants. Lopinavir/ritonavir should be initiated in women with known nevirapine resistance or single-dose nevirapine exposure less than 12 months prior, or in whom such information is unknown.

Full-text

Available from: James Mcintyre, Jun 03, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
109 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT) programs currently prioritize antiretroviral therapy (ART) for women with advanced HIV. Point-of-care (POC) CD4 assays may expedite the selection of three-drug ART instead of zidovudine, but are costlier than traditional laboratory assays. We used validated models of HIV infection to simulate pregnant, HIV-infected women (mean age 26 years, gestational age 26 weeks) in a general antenatal clinic in South Africa, and their infants. We examined two strategies for CD4 testing after HIV diagnosis: laboratory (test rate: 96%, result-return rate: 87%, cost: $14) and POC (test rate: 99%, result-return rate: 95%, cost: $26). We modeled South African PMTCT guidelines during the study period (WHO "Option A"): antenatal zidovudine (CD4 ≤350/μL) or ART (CD4>350/μL). Outcomes included MTCT risk at weaning (age 6 months), maternal and pediatric life expectancy (LE), maternal and pediatric lifetime healthcare costs (2013 USD), and cost-effectiveness ($/life-year saved). In the base case, laboratory led to projected MTCT risks of 5.7%, undiscounted pediatric LE of 53.2 years, and undiscounted PMTCT plus pediatric lifetime costs of $1,070/infant. POC led to lower modeled MTCT risk (5.3%), greater pediatric LE (53.4 years) and lower PMTCT plus pediatric lifetime costs ($1,040/infant). Maternal outcomes following laboratory were similar to POC (LE: 21.2 years; lifetime costs: $23,860/person). Compared to laboratory, POC improved clinical outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. In antenatal clinics implementing Option A, the higher initial cost of a one-time POC CD4 assay will be offset by cost-savings from prevention of pediatric HIV infection.
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0117751. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117751 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. The clinical relevance of ultrasensitive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) genotypic resistance testing in antiretroviral treatment (ART)-experienced individuals remains unknown. Methods. This was a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study in ART-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults who initiated salvage ART including, at least 1 ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor, raltegravir or etravirine. Presalvage ART Sanger and 454 sequencing of plasma HIV-1 were used to generate separate genotypic sensitivity scores (GSS) using the HIVdb, ANRS, and REGA algorithms. Virological failure (VF) was defined as 2 consecutive HIV-1 RNA levels >= 200 copies/mL at least 12 weeks after salvage ART initiation, whereas subjects remained on the same ART. The ability of Sanger and 454-GSS to predict VF was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and survival analyses. Results. The study included 132 evaluable subjects; 28 (21%) developed VF. Using HIVdb, 454 predicted VF better than Sanger sequencing in the ROC curve analysis (area under the curve: 0.69 vs 0.60, Delong test P = .029). Time to VF was shorter for subjects with 454-GSS <3 vs 454-GSS >= 3 (Log-rank P = .003) but not significantly different between Sanger-GSS <3 and >= 3. Factors independently associated with increased risk of VF in multivariate Cox regression were a 454-GSS <3 (HR = 4.6, 95 CI, [1.5, 14.0], P = .007), and the number of previous antiretrovirals received (HR = 1.2 per additional drug, 95 CI, [1.1, 1.3], P = .001). Equivalent findings were obtained with the ANRS and REGA algorithms. Conclusions. Ultrasensitive HIV-1 genotyping improves GSS-based predictions of virological outcomes of salvage ART relative to Sanger sequencing. This may improve the clinical management of ART-experienced subjects living with HIV-1.
    Clinical Infectious Diseases 05/2014; 59(4). DOI:10.1093/cid/ciu287 · 9.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mobile HIV screening may facilitate early HIV diagnosis. Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of adding a mobile screening unit to current medical facility-based HIV testing in Cape Town, South Africa. We used the Cost Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications International (CEPAC-I) computer simulation model to evaluate two HIV screening strategies in Cape Town: 1) medical facility-based testing (the current standard of care) and 2) addition of a mobile HIV-testing unit intervention in the same community. Baseline input parameters were derived from a Cape Town-based mobile unit that tested 18,870 individuals over 2 years: prevalence of previously undiagnosed HIV (6.6%), mean CD4 count at diagnosis (males 423/µL, females 516/µL), CD4 count-dependent linkage to care rates (males 31%-58%, females 49%-58%), mobile unit intervention cost (includes acquisition, operation and HIV test costs, $29.30 per negative result and $31.30 per positive result). We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses to evaluate input uncertainty. Model outcomes included site of HIV diagnosis, life expectancy, medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention compared to medical facility-based testing. We considered the intervention to be "very cost-effective" when the ICER was less than South Africa's annual per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ($8,200 in 2012). We projected that, with medical facility-based testing, the discounted (undiscounted) HIV-infected population life expectancy was 132.2 (197.7) months; this increased to 140.7 (211.7) months with the addition of the mobile unit. The ICER for the mobile unit was $2,400/year of life saved (YLS). Results were most sensitive to the previously undiagnosed HIV prevalence, linkage to care rates, and frequency of HIV testing at medical facilities. The addition of mobile HIV screening to current testing programs can improve survival and be very cost-effective in South Africa and other resource-limited settings, and should be a priority.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(1):e85197. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0085197 · 3.53 Impact Factor