INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis comparing lopinavir with ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) for antiretroviral-naïve patients with a baseline CD4+ T-cell distribution and total cholesterol (TC) profile as reported in the CASTLE study. METHODS: This decision analysis study used a previously published Markov model of HIV disease, incorporating coronary heart disease (CHD) events to compare the short- and long-term budget impacts and CHD consequences expected for the two regimens. RESULTS: Patients were assumed to have a baseline CHD risk of 4.6% (based on demographic data) and it was also assumed that 50% of the population in the CASTLE study were smokers. The CHD risk differences (based on percent of patients with TC >240 mg/dL) in favor of ATV+RTV resulted in an average improvement in life expectancy of 0.031 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (11 days), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,409,734/QALY. Use of the LPV/r regimen saved $24,518 and $36,651 at 5 and 10 years, respectively, with lifetime cost savings estimated at $38,490. A sensitivity analysis using a cohort of all smokers on antihypertensive medication estimated an average improvement in life expectancy of 31 quality-adjusted days in favor of ATV+RTV, and a cost-effectiveness ratio of $520,861/QALY: a ratio that is still above the acceptable limit within the US. CONCLUSION: The use of an LPV/r-based regimen in antiretroviral-naïve patients with a baseline CHD risk similar to patients in the CASTLE study appears to be a more cost-effective use of resources compared with an ATV+RTV-based regimen. The very small added CHD risk predicted by LPV/r treatment is more than offset by the substantial short- and long-term cost savings expected with the use of LPV/r in antiretroviral-naïve individuals with average to moderately elevated CHD risk.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis comparing lopinavir with ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) for antiretroviral-naïve patients with a baseline CD4+ T-cell distribution and total cholesterol (TC) profile as reported in the CASTLE study. METHODS: This decision analysis study used a previously published Markov model of HIV disease, incorporating coronary heart disease (CHD) events to compare the short- and long-term budget impacts and CHD consequences expected for the two regimens. RESULTS:Patients were assumed to have a baseline CHD risk of 4.6% (based on demographic data) and it was also assumed that 50% of the population in the CASTLE study were smokers. The CHD risk differences (based on percent of patients with TC >240 mg/dL) in favor of ATV+RTV resulted in an average improvement in life expectancy of 0.031 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (11 days), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,409,734/QALY. Use of the LPV/r regimen saved $24,518 and $36,651 at 5 and 10 years, respectively, with lifetime cost savings estimated at $38,490. A sensitivity analysis using a cohort of all smokers on antihypertensive medication estimated an average improvement in life expectancy of 31 quality-adjusted days in favor of ATV+RTV, and a cost-effectiveness ratio of $520,861/QALY: a ratio that is still above the acceptable limit within the US. CONCLUSION: The use of an LPV/r-based regimen in antiretroviral-naïve patients with a baseline CHD risk similar to patients in the CASTLE study appears to be a more cost-effective use of resources compared with an ATV+RTV-based regimen. The very small added CHD risk predicted by LPV/r treatment is more than offset by the substantial short- and long-term cost savings expected with the use of LPV/r in antiretroviral-naïve individuals with average to moderately elevated CHD risk.
Authors: Anita J Brogan; Erik Smets; Josephine A Mauskopf; Sarah A L Manuel; Ines Adriaenssen Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Kit N Simpson; Pamela P Pei; Jörgen Möller; Robert W Baran; Birgitta Dietz; William Woodward; Kristen Migliaccio-Walle; J Jaime Caro Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.558