Jason Kessler1, R Scott Braithwaite. 1. Division of Comparative Effectiveness and Decision Science, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that evaluate optimal treatment strategies for persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). RECENT FINDINGS: Efforts to attain universal coverage of current treatment guidelines (e.g., initiation at CD4 cell count <350 cells/μl) are generally very costeffective. Expansion of access beyond current guidelines will additionally improve clinical outcomes and aversion of new HIV infections; however, cost-effectiveness is more uncertain. Increasing access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) offers greater health benefit than investing the same funds in intensive laboratory monitoring for those on ART, particularly in those settings in which universal coverage has not yet been attained. Recommended ART regimens (e.g., tenofovir) have favorable cost-effectiveness when compared with substitution of newer, more expensive agents (e.g., rilpivirine, darunavir) or substitution of older, cheaper alternatives that are more toxic (e.g., stavudine). SUMMARY: There is increasing use of CEA to evaluate decisions regarding HIV treatment in order to buy the most 'health' with limited resources. Expansion of ART access provides substantial clinical and preventive benefit and offers favorable cost-effectiveness. Intensive laboratory monitoring may not be the highest priority in settings in which resources are constrained. Further work on the economic impact, clinical effectiveness, and feasibility of ART treatment for all (e.g., no CD4 cell initiation criteria) is needed.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that evaluate optimal treatment strategies for persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). RECENT FINDINGS: Efforts to attain universal coverage of current treatment guidelines (e.g., initiation at CD4 cell count <350 cells/μl) are generally very costeffective. Expansion of access beyond current guidelines will additionally improve clinical outcomes and aversion of new HIV infections; however, cost-effectiveness is more uncertain. Increasing access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) offers greater health benefit than investing the same funds in intensive laboratory monitoring for those on ART, particularly in those settings in which universal coverage has not yet been attained. Recommended ART regimens (e.g., tenofovir) have favorable cost-effectiveness when compared with substitution of newer, more expensive agents (e.g., rilpivirine, darunavir) or substitution of older, cheaper alternatives that are more toxic (e.g., stavudine). SUMMARY: There is increasing use of CEA to evaluate decisions regarding HIV treatment in order to buy the most 'health' with limited resources. Expansion of ART access provides substantial clinical and preventive benefit and offers favorable cost-effectiveness. Intensive laboratory monitoring may not be the highest priority in settings in which resources are constrained. Further work on the economic impact, clinical effectiveness, and feasibility of ART treatment for all (e.g., no CD4 cell initiation criteria) is needed.
Authors: Sue J Goldie; Yazdan Yazdanpanah; Elena Losina; Milton C Weinstein; Xavier Anglaret; Rochelle P Walensky; Heather E Hsu; April Kimmel; Charles Holmes; Jonathan E Kaplan; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew N Phillips; Deenan Pillay; Alec H Miners; Diane E Bennett; Charles F Gilks; Jens D Lundgren Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-04-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paula Braitstein; Martin W G Brinkhof; François Dabis; Mauro Schechter; Andrew Boulle; Paolo Miotti; Robin Wood; Christian Laurent; Eduardo Sprinz; Catherine Seyler; David R Bangsberg; Eric Balestre; Jonathan A C Sterne; Margaret May; Matthias Egger Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-03-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andreas Jahn; Sian Floyd; Amelia C Crampin; Frank Mwaungulu; Hazzie Mvula; Fipson Munthali; Nuala McGrath; Johnbosco Mwafilaso; Venance Mwinuka; Bernard Mangongo; Paul E M Fine; Basia Zaba; Judith R Glynn Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paul K Drain; Jienchi Dorward; Andrew Bender; Lorraine Lillis; Francesco Marinucci; Jilian Sacks; Anna Bershteyn; David S Boyle; Jonathan D Posner; Nigel Garrett Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Andrew N Phillips; Valentina Cambiano; Alec Miners; Paul Revill; Deenan Pillay; Jens D Lundgren; Diane Bennett; Elliott Raizes; Fumiyo Nakagawa; Andrea De Luca; Marco Vitoria; Jhoney Barcarolo; Joseph Perriens; Michael R Jordan; Silvia Bertagnolio Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Kelly V Ruggles; Anik R Patel; Stephen Schensul; Jean Schensul; Kimberly Nucifora; Qinlian Zhou; Kendall Bryant; R Scott Braithwaite Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew P Craig; Hla-Hla Thein; Lei Zhang; Richard T Gray; Klara Henderson; David Wilson; Marelize Gorgens; David P Wilson Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 5.396