BACKGROUND: In resource-limited settings, genotype testing at virologic failure on first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) may identify patients with wild-type (WT) virus. After adherence counseling, these patients may safely and effectively continue first-line ART, thereby delaying more expensive second-line ART. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications International model of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease to simulate a South African cohort of HIV-infected adults at first-line ART failure. Two strategies were examined: no genotype vs genotype, assuming availability of protease inhibitor-based second-line ART. Model inputs at first-line ART failure were mean age 38 years, mean CD4 173/µL, and WT virus prevalence 20%; genotype cost was $300 per test and delay to results, 3 months. Outcomes included life expectancy, per-person costs (2010 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (dollars per years of life saved [YLS]). RESULTS: No genotype had a projected life expectancy of 106.1 months, which with genotype increased to 108.3 months. Per-person discounted lifetime costs were $16 360 and $16 540, respectively. Compared to no genotype, genotype was very cost-effective, by international guidance, at $900/YLS. The cost-effectiveness of genotype was sensitive to prevalence of WT virus (very cost-effective when prevalence ≥ 12%), CD4 at first-line ART failure, and ART efficacy. Genotype-associated delays in care ≥ 5 months decreased survival and made no genotype the preferred strategy. When the test cost was <$100, genotype became cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype resistance testing at first-line ART failure is very cost-effective in South Africa. The cost-effectiveness of this strategy will depend on prevalence of WT virus and timely response to genotype results.
BACKGROUND: In resource-limited settings, genotype testing at virologic failure on first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) may identify patients with wild-type (WT) virus. After adherence counseling, these patients may safely and effectively continue first-line ART, thereby delaying more expensive second-line ART. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications International model of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease to simulate a South African cohort of HIV-infected adults at first-line ART failure. Two strategies were examined: no genotype vs genotype, assuming availability of protease inhibitor-based second-line ART. Model inputs at first-line ART failure were mean age 38 years, mean CD4 173/µL, and WT virus prevalence 20%; genotype cost was $300 per test and delay to results, 3 months. Outcomes included life expectancy, per-person costs (2010 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (dollars per years of life saved [YLS]). RESULTS: No genotype had a projected life expectancy of 106.1 months, which with genotype increased to 108.3 months. Per-person discounted lifetime costs were $16 360 and $16 540, respectively. Compared to no genotype, genotype was very cost-effective, by international guidance, at $900/YLS. The cost-effectiveness of genotype was sensitive to prevalence of WT virus (very cost-effective when prevalence ≥ 12%), CD4 at first-line ART failure, and ART efficacy. Genotype-associated delays in care ≥ 5 months decreased survival and made no genotype the preferred strategy. When the test cost was <$100, genotype became cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype resistance testing at first-line ART failure is very cost-effective in South Africa. The cost-effectiveness of this strategy will depend on prevalence of WT virus and timely response to genotype results.
Authors: Anton L Pozniak; Joel E Gallant; Edwin DeJesus; Jose R Arribas; Brian Gazzard; Rafael E Campo; Shan-Shan Chen; Damian McColl; Jeffrey Enejosa; John J Toole; Andrew K Cheng Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Y Yazdanpanah; M Vray; J Meynard; E Losina; M C Weinstein; L Morand-Joubert; S J Goldie; H E Hsu; R P Walensky; C Dalban; P E Sax; P M Girard; K A Freedberg Journal: HIV Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Suely H Tuboi; Martin W G Brinkhof; Matthias Egger; Roslyn A Stone; Paula Braitstein; Denis Nash; Eduardo Sprinz; François Dabis; Lee H Harrison; Mauro Schechter Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Vincent C Marconi; Henry Sunpath; Zhigang Lu; Michelle Gordon; Kofi Koranteng-Apeagyei; Jane Hampton; Steve Carpenter; Janet Giddy; Douglas Ross; Helga Holst; Elena Losina; Bruce D Walker; Daniel R Kuritzkes Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Esmeralda A J M Soares; André F A Santos; Thatiana M Sousa; Eduardo Sprinz; Ana M B Martinez; Jussara Silveira; Amilcar Tanuri; Marcelo A Soares Journal: PLoS One Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark J Siedner; Mwebesa B Bwana; Mahomed-Yunus S Moosa; Michelle Paul; Selvan Pillay; Suzanne McCluskey; Isaac Aturinda; Kevin Ard; Winnie Muyindike; Pravikrishnen Moodley; Jaysingh Brijkumar; Tamlyn Rautenberg; Gavin George; Brent Johnson; Rajesh T Gandhi; Henry Sunpath; Vincent C Marconi Journal: HIV Clin Trials Date: 2017-07-18
Authors: Gert U van Zyl; Lisa M Frenkel; Michael H Chung; Wolfgang Preiser; John W Mellors; Jean B Nachega Journal: AIDS Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Marc Noguera-Julian; Dianna Edgil; P Richard Harrigan; Paul Sandstrom; Catherine Godfrey; Roger Paredes Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 5.226