Ahmed M Bayoumi1, Paul G Barnett, Vilija R Joyce, Susan C Griffin, Huiying Sun, Nick J Bansback, Mark Holodniy, Gillian Sanders, Sheldon T Brown, Tassos C Kyriakides, Brian Angus, D William Cameron, Aslam H Anis, Mark Sculpher, Douglas K Owens. 1. *Center for Research on Inner City Health, The Keenan Research Center in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; †Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ‡Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; §Division of General Internal Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ‖VA Palo Alto Health Care System, VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, VA HSR&D Health Economics Resource Center, Menlo Park, CA; ¶Center for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom; #Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada **CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; ††School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; ‡‡VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA; §§Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; ‖‖Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC; ¶¶James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY; ##Department of Medicine, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY; ***VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, West Haven, CT; †††MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, United Kingdom; ‡‡‡Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; §§§The University of Ottawa at The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and ‖‖‖Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research and Center for Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Newer antiretroviral drugs provide substantial benefits but are expensive. The cost-effectiveness of using antiretroviral drugs in combination for patients with multidrug-resistant HIV disease was determined. DESIGN: A cohort state-transition model was built representing treatment-experienced patients with low CD4 counts, high viral load levels, and multidrug-resistant virus. The effectiveness of newer drugs (those approved in 2005 or later) was estimated from published randomized trials. Other parameters were estimated from a randomized trial and from the literature. The model had a lifetime time horizon and used the perspective of an ideal insurer in the United States. The interventions were combination antiretroviral therapy, consisting of 2 newer drugs and 1 conventional drug, compared with 3 conventional drugs. Outcome measures were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Substituting newer antiretroviral drugs increased expected survival by 3.9 years in advanced HIV disease. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of newer, compared with conventional, antiretroviral drugs was $75,556/QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that substituting only one newer antiretroviral drug cost $54,559 to $68,732/QALY, depending on assumptions about efficacy. Substituting 3 newer drugs cost $105,956 to $117,477/QALY. Cost-effectiveness ratios were higher if conventional drugs were not discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment-experienced patients with advanced HIV disease, use of newer antiretroviral agents can be cost-effective, given a cost-effectiveness threshold in the range of $50,000 to $75,000 per QALY gained. Newer antiretroviral agents should be used in carefully selected patients for whom less expensive options are clearly inferior.
OBJECTIVE: Newer antiretroviral drugs provide substantial benefits but are expensive. The cost-effectiveness of using antiretroviral drugs in combination for patients with multidrug-resistant HIV disease was determined. DESIGN: A cohort state-transition model was built representing treatment-experienced patients with low CD4 counts, high viral load levels, and multidrug-resistant virus. The effectiveness of newer drugs (those approved in 2005 or later) was estimated from published randomized trials. Other parameters were estimated from a randomized trial and from the literature. The model had a lifetime time horizon and used the perspective of an ideal insurer in the United States. The interventions were combination antiretroviral therapy, consisting of 2 newer drugs and 1 conventional drug, compared with 3 conventional drugs. Outcome measures were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Substituting newer antiretroviral drugs increased expected survival by 3.9 years in advanced HIV disease. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of newer, compared with conventional, antiretroviral drugs was $75,556/QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that substituting only one newer antiretroviral drug cost $54,559 to $68,732/QALY, depending on assumptions about efficacy. Substituting 3 newer drugs cost $105,956 to $117,477/QALY. Cost-effectiveness ratios were higher if conventional drugs were not discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment-experienced patients with advanced HIV disease, use of newer antiretroviral agents can be cost-effective, given a cost-effectiveness threshold in the range of $50,000 to $75,000 per QALY gained. Newer antiretroviral agents should be used in carefully selected patients for whom less expensive options are clearly inferior.
Authors: Charles B Hicks; Pedro Cahn; David A Cooper; Sharon L Walmsley; Christine Katlama; Bonaventura Clotet; Adriano Lazzarin; Margaret A Johnson; Dietmar Neubacher; Douglas Mayers; Hernan Valdez Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-08-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Vilija R Joyce; Paul G Barnett; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Susan C Griffin; Tassos C Kyriakides; Wei Yu; Vandana Sundaram; Mark Holodniy; Sheldon T Brown; William Cameron; Mike Youle; Mark Sculpher; Aslam H Anis; Douglas K Owens Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Martin Markowitz; Leonard N Slater; Robert Schwartz; Powel H Kazanjian; Bruce Hathaway; David Wheeler; Mitchell Goldman; Dietmar Neubacher; Douglas Mayers; Hernan Valdez; Scott McCallister Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: José Valdez Madruga; Daniel Berger; Marilyn McMurchie; Fredy Suter; Denes Banhegyi; Kiat Ruxrungtham; Dorece Norris; Eric Lefebvre; Marie-Pierre de Béthune; Frank Tomaka; Martine De Pauw; Tony Vangeneugden; Sabrina Spinosa-Guzman Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-07-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Richard Haubrich; Dan Berger; Philippe Chiliade; Amy Colson; Marcus Conant; Joel Gallant; Timothy Wilkin; Jeffrey Nadler; Gerald Pierone; Michael Saag; Ben van Baelen; Eric Lefebvre Journal: AIDS Date: 2007-03-30 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Mohammad A Chaudhary; Santiago Moreno; Ritesh N Kumar; Gonzalo Nocea; Elamin Elbasha Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Andrea De Luca; David Dunn; Maurizio Zazzi; Ricardo Camacho; Carlo Torti; Iuri Fanti; Rolf Kaiser; Anders Sönnerborg; Francisco M Codoñer; Kristel Van Laethem; Anne-Mieke Vandamme; Loveleen Bansi; Valeria Ghisetti; David A M C van de Vijver; David Asboe; Mattia C F Prosperi; Simona Di Giambenedetto Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Michael S Saag; Constance A Benson; Rajesh T Gandhi; Jennifer F Hoy; Raphael J Landovitz; Michael J Mugavero; Paul E Sax; Davey M Smith; Melanie A Thompson; Susan P Buchbinder; Carlos Del Rio; Joseph J Eron; Gerd Fätkenheuer; Huldrych F Günthard; Jean-Michel Molina; Donna M Jacobsen; Paul A Volberding Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Blythe Adamson; Louis Garrison; Ruanne V Barnabas; Josh J Carlson; James Kublin; Dobromir Dimitrov Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Eugenia Quiros-Roldan; Michele Magoni; Elena Raffetti; Francesco Donato; Carmelo Scarcella; Giuseppe Paraninfo; Francesco Castelli Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 3.295