OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of HLA-B*5701 testing to guide selection of first-line HIV regimens in the United States. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a simulation model of HIV disease. The prevalence of HLA-B*5701 and the probabilities of confirmed and unconfirmed severe systemic hypersensitivity reaction among patients taking abacavir testing HLA-B*5701 positive and negative were from the Prospective Randomized Evaluation of DNA Screening in a Clinical Trial study. The monthly costs of abacavir-based and tenofovir-based regimens were $1135 and $1139, respectively; similar virologic efficacy was assumed and this assumption was varied in sensitivity analysis. PATIENTS: Simulated cohort of patients initiating HIV therapy. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions are first-line abacavir, lamivudine, and efavirenz without pretreatment HLA-B*5701 testing; the same regimen with HLA-B*5701 testing; and first-line tenofovir, emtricitabine, and efavirenz. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years and lifetime medical costs discounted at 3% per annum, cost-effectiveness ratios ($/QALY). RESULTS: Abacavir-based treatment without HLA-B*5701 testing resulted in a projected 30.93 years life expectancy, 16.23 discounted quality-adjusted life years, and $472,200 discounted lifetime cost per person. HLA-B*5701 testing added 0.04 quality-adjusted months at an incremental cost of $110, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,700/QALY compared with no testing. Initiating treatment with a tenofovir-based regimen increased costs without improving quality-adjusted life expectancy. HLA-B*5701 testing remained the preferred strategy only if abacavir-based treatment had equal efficacy and cost less per month than tenofovir-based treatment. Results were also sensitive to the cost of HLA-B*5701 testing and the prevalence of HLA-B*5701. CONCLUSION: Pharmacogenetic testing for HLA-B*5701 is cost-effective only if abacavir-based treatment is as effective and costs less than tenofovir-based treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of HLA-B*5701 testing to guide selection of first-line HIV regimens in the United States. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a simulation model of HIV disease. The prevalence of HLA-B*5701 and the probabilities of confirmed and unconfirmed severe systemic hypersensitivity reaction among patients taking abacavir testing HLA-B*5701 positive and negative were from the Prospective Randomized Evaluation of DNA Screening in a Clinical Trial study. The monthly costs of abacavir-based and tenofovir-based regimens were $1135 and $1139, respectively; similar virologic efficacy was assumed and this assumption was varied in sensitivity analysis. PATIENTS: Simulated cohort of patients initiating HIV therapy. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions are first-line abacavir, lamivudine, and efavirenz without pretreatment HLA-B*5701 testing; the same regimen with HLA-B*5701 testing; and first-line tenofovir, emtricitabine, and efavirenz. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years and lifetime medical costs discounted at 3% per annum, cost-effectiveness ratios ($/QALY). RESULTS:Abacavir-based treatment without HLA-B*5701 testing resulted in a projected 30.93 years life expectancy, 16.23 discounted quality-adjusted life years, and $472,200 discounted lifetime cost per person. HLA-B*5701 testing added 0.04 quality-adjusted months at an incremental cost of $110, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,700/QALY compared with no testing. Initiating treatment with a tenofovir-based regimen increased costs without improving quality-adjusted life expectancy. HLA-B*5701 testing remained the preferred strategy only if abacavir-based treatment had equal efficacy and cost less per month than tenofovir-based treatment. Results were also sensitive to the cost of HLA-B*5701 testing and the prevalence of HLA-B*5701. CONCLUSION: Pharmacogenetic testing for HLA-B*5701 is cost-effective only if abacavir-based treatment is as effective and costs less than tenofovir-based treatment.
Authors: S Mallal; D Nolan; C Witt; G Masel; A M Martin; C Moore; D Sayer; A Castley; C Mamotte; D Maxwell; I James; F T Christiansen Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Hetherington; S McGuirk; G Powell; A Cutrell; O Naderer; B Spreen; S Lafon; G Pearce; H Steel Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Seth Hetherington; Arlene R Hughes; Michael Mosteller; Denise Shortino; Katherine L Baker; William Spreen; Eric Lai; Kirstie Davies; Abigail Handley; David J Dow; Mary E Fling; Michael Stocum; Clive Bowman; Linda M Thurmond; Allen D Roses Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joel E Gallant; Schlomo Staszewski; Anton L Pozniak; Edwin DeJesus; Jamal M A H Suleiman; Michael D Miller; Dion F Coakley; Biao Lu; John J Toole; Andrew K Cheng Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-07-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bethany L Morris; Callie A Scott; Timothy J Wilkin; Paul E Sax; Roy M Gulick; Kenneth A Freedberg; Bruce R Schackman Journal: HIV Clin Trials Date: 2012 Jan-Feb
Authors: Mark McCormack; Ana Alfirevic; Stephane Bourgeois; John J Farrell; Dalia Kasperavičiūtė; Mary Carrington; Graeme J Sills; Tony Marson; Xiaoming Jia; Paul I W de Bakker; Krishna Chinthapalli; Mariam Molokhia; Michael R Johnson; Gerard D O'Connor; Elijah Chaila; Saud Alhusaini; Kevin V Shianna; Rodney A Radtke; Erin L Heinzen; Nicole Walley; Massimo Pandolfo; Werner Pichler; B Kevin Park; Chantal Depondt; Sanjay M Sisodiya; David B Goldstein; Panos Deloukas; Norman Delanty; Gianpiero L Cavalleri; Munir Pirmohamed Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Caroline E Sloan; Karen Champenois; Philippe Choisy; Elena Losina; Rochelle P Walensky; Bruce R Schackman; Faiza Ajana; Hugues Melliez; A D Paltiel; Kenneth A Freedberg; Yazdan Yazdanpanah Journal: AIDS Date: 2012-01-02 Impact factor: 4.177