Article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of UGT1A1 genetic testing to inform antiretroviral prescribing in HIV disease

Department of Public Health, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. .
Antiviral therapy (Impact Factor: 3.02). 12/2012; 18(3). DOI: 10.3851/IMP2500
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background:
Homozygosity for UGT1A1*28/*28 has been reported to be associated with atazanavir-associated hyperbilirubinaemia and premature atazanavir discontinuation. We assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 testing to inform the choice of an initial protease-inhibitor-containing regimen in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive individuals.

Methods:
We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications computer simulation model to project quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs (2009 USD) for atazanavir-based ART with or without UGT1A1 testing, using darunavir rather than atazanavir when indicated. We assumed the UGT1A1-associated atazanavir discontinuation rate reported in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (a *28/*28 frequency of 14.9%), equal efficacy and cost of atazanavir and darunavir and a genetic assay cost of $107. These parameters, as well as the effect of hyperbilirubinaemia on quality of life and loss to follow up, were varied in sensitivity analyses. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually.

Results:
Initiating atazanavir-based ART at CD4(+) T-cell counts <500 cells/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 hyperbilirubinaemia by UGT1A1 testing reduced loss to follow-up 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.

1 Follower
 · 
21 Reads
  • [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.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2015 · Clinical Infectious Diseases
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Some patients are not prescribed atazanavir because of concern about possible jaundice. Atazanavir-associated hyperbilirubinemia correlates with UGT1A1 rs887829 genotype. We examined bilirubin-related discontinuation of atazanavir in participants from AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study A5257. Methods. Discriminatory properties of UGT1A1 T/T genotype for predicting bilirubin-related atazanavir discontinuation through 96 weeks after antiretroviral initiation were estimated. Results. Genetic analyses involved 1450 participants, including 481 who initiated randomized atazanavir/ritonavir. Positive predictive values of rs887829 T/T for bilirubin-related discontinuation of atazanavir (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 20% (CI, 9%–36%) in Black, 60% (CI, 32%–84%) in White, and 29% (CI, 8%–58%) in Hispanic participants; negative predictive values were 97% (CI, 93%–99%), 95% (CI, 90%–98%), and 97% (CI, 90%–100%), respectively. Conclusions. Bilirubin-related discontinuation of atazanavir was rare in participants not homozygous for rs887829 T/T, regardless of race or ethnicity. We hypothesize that the higher rate of discontinuation among White participants homozygous for rs887829 T/T may reflect differences in physical manifestations of jaundice by race and ethnicity. Selective avoidance of atazanavir initiation among individuals with T/T genotypes would markedly reduce the likelihood of bilirubin-related discontinuation of atazanavir while allowing atazanavir to be prescribed to the majority of individuals. This genetic association will also affect atazanavir/cobicistat.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015 · Open Forum Infectious Diseases
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Due to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies' overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Results: We found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing. Conclusions: Application of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests' efficacy remains of utmost importance.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2016 · PLoS ONE