Yiannis Koullias1,2, Paul E Sax2,3, Naomi F Fields4, Rochelle P Walensky2,3,4,5, Emily P Hyle2,4,5. 1. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 4. Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
Background: Current guidelines recommend genotype resistance testing at diagnosis to guide initial selection of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Many standard resistance genotypes exclude testing for resistance to integrase inhibitors ("IR testing"), although this class of drugs is a component of most recommended first-line regimens. Methods: We compared the 96-week clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of 2 strategies: no IR testing vs IR testing performed at human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis. The base case prevalence of transmitted integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-resistant (INSTI-R) virus is estimated at 0.1%. With no IR testing, all patients start dolutegravir (DTG)-based ART after genotype; 12-week suppression rates are 90% (INSTI-susceptible [INSTI-S] virus) and 35% (INSTI-R virus). Those not suppressed at 12 weeks undergo IR testing; if diagnosed with INSTI-R virus, they change to ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r)-based ART. With IR testing, all patients are diagnosed with INSTI-S/INSTI-R virus prior to ART initiation and start DTG- or DRV/r-based regimens, respectively. Costs include IR tests (175 US dollars [USD]) and ART (41100-44900 USD/year). We examined the impact of key parameters in sensitivity analyses. Results: IR testing resulted in worse clinical outcomes compared to no IR testing and increased costs by 200 USD/person/year. Prevalence of transmitted INSTI-R virus did not affect the favored strategy. No IR testing remained clinically preferred unless DTG suppression of INSTI-R virus was <20% or 96-week DRV/r suppression was >92%. If quality of life was worse with DRV/r- than DTG-based ART, no IR testing was clinically preferred over an even broader range of parameters. Conclusions: In patients with newly diagnosed HIV, IR testing is projected to result in worse outcomes and is not cost-effective. Pretreatment assessment for INSTI resistance should not be recommended in treatment guidelines.
Background: Current guidelines recommend genotype resistance testing at diagnosis to guide initial selection of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Many standard resistance genotypes exclude testing for resistance to integrase inhibitors ("IR testing"), although this class of drugs is a component of most recommended first-line regimens. Methods: We compared the 96-week clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of 2 strategies: no IR testing vs IR testing performed at human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis. The base case prevalence of transmitted integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-resistant (INSTI-R) virus is estimated at 0.1%. With no IR testing, all patients start dolutegravir (DTG)-based ART after genotype; 12-week suppression rates are 90% (INSTI-susceptible [INSTI-S] virus) and 35% (INSTI-R virus). Those not suppressed at 12 weeks undergo IR testing; if diagnosed with INSTI-R virus, they change to ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r)-based ART. With IR testing, all patients are diagnosed with INSTI-S/INSTI-R virus prior to ART initiation and start DTG- or DRV/r-based regimens, respectively. Costs include IR tests (175 US dollars [USD]) and ART (41100-44900 USD/year). We examined the impact of key parameters in sensitivity analyses. Results: IR testing resulted in worse clinical outcomes compared to no IR testing and increased costs by 200 USD/person/year. Prevalence of transmitted INSTI-R virus did not affect the favored strategy. No IR testing remained clinically preferred unless DTG suppression of INSTI-R virus was <20% or 96-week DRV/r suppression was >92%. If quality of life was worse with DRV/r- than DTG-based ART, no IR testing was clinically preferred over an even broader range of parameters. Conclusions: In patients with newly diagnosed HIV, IR testing is projected to result in worse outcomes and is not cost-effective. Pretreatment assessment for INSTI resistance should not be recommended in treatment guidelines.
Authors: Kit N Simpson; Birgitta Dietz; Robert W Baran; Kevin W Garren; Sharon A Riddler; Menaka Bhor; Richard H Haubrich Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2011-05-08
Authors: M Lallemant; G Jourdain; S Le Coeur; S Kim; S Koetsawang; A M Comeau; W Phoolcharoen; M Essex; K McIntosh; V Vithayasai Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Sayan; A Gündüz; G Ersöz; A İnan; A Deveci; G Özgür; F Sargın; G Karagöz; A İnci; D İnan; A Ülçay; I Karaoğlan; S Kaya; S S Kutlu; K Süer; A Çağatay; H Akalın Journal: HIV Clin Trials Date: 2016-03-15
Authors: Jeffrey L Lennox; Raphael J Landovitz; Heather J Ribaudo; Ighovwerha Ofotokun; Lumine H Na; Catherine Godfrey; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Manish Sagar; Todd T Brown; Susan E Cohn; Grace A McComsey; Francesca Aweeka; Carl J Fichtenbaum; Rachel M Presti; Susan L Koletar; David W Haas; Kristine B Patterson; Constance A Benson; Bryan P Baugh; Randi Y Leavitt; James F Rooney; Daniel Seekins; Judith S Currier Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Sharon Walmsley; Axel Baumgarten; Juan Berenguer; Franco Felizarta; Eric Florence; Marie-Aude Khuong-Josses; J Michael Kilby; Thomas Lutz; Daniel Podzamczer; Joaquin Portilla; Norman Roth; Deborah Wong; Catherine Granier; Brian Wynne; Keith Pappa Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Tomas Doyle; David T Dunn; Francesca Ceccherini-Silberstein; Carmen De Mendoza; Frederico Garcia; Erasmus Smit; Esther Fearnhill; Anne-Genevieve Marcelin; Javier Martinez-Picado; Rolf Kaiser; Anna Maria Geretti Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Emily P Hyle; Justine A Scott; Paul E Sax; Lucia R I Millham; Caitlin M Dugdale; Milton C Weinstein; Kenneth A Freedberg; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 9.079
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: George A Yendewa; Sulaiman Lakoh; Sahr A Yendewa; Khadijah Bangura; Andrés Tabernilla; Lucia Patiño; Darlinda F Jiba; Alren O Vandy; Samuel P Massaquoi; Nuno S Osório; Gibrilla F Deen; Foday Sahr; Robert A Salata; Eva Poveda Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 4.096