Emily P Hyle1,2,3,4, Justine A Scott1, Paul E Sax3,5, Lucia R I Millham1, Caitlin M Dugdale1,2,3, Milton C Weinstein3,6, Kenneth A Freedberg1,2,3,4,6,7, Rochelle P Walensky1,2,3,4,7. 1. Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Department of Medicine. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston. 4. Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, Cambridge. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases and Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital. 6. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: US guidelines recommend genotype testing at human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis ("baseline genotype") to detect transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), and protease inhibitors. With integrase strand inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimens now recommended as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), the of baseline genotypes is uncertain. METHODS: We used the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications model to examine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of baseline genotype compared to no baseline genotype for people starting ART with dolutegravir (DTG) and an NRTI pair. For people with no TDR (83.8%), baseline genotype does not alter regimen selection. Among people with transmitted NRTI resistance (5.8%), baseline genotype guides NRTI selection and informs subsequent ART after adverse events (DTG AEs, 14%). Among people with transmitted NNRTI resistance (7.2%), baseline genotype influences care only for people with DTG AEs switching to NNRTI-based regimens. The 48-week virologic suppression varied (40%-92%) depending on TDR. Costs included $320/genotype and $2500-$3000/month for ART. RESULTS: Compared to no baseline genotype, baseline genotype resulted in <1 additional undiscounted quality-adjusted life-day (QALD), cost an additional $500/person, and was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $420 000/quality-adjusted life-year). In univariate sensitivity analysis, clinical benefits of baseline genotype never exceeded 5 QALDs for all newly diagnosed people with HIV. Baseline genotype was cost-effective at current TDR prevalence only under unlikely conditions, eg, DTG-based regimens achieving ≤50% suppression of transmitted NRTI resistance. CONCLUSIONS: With INSTI-based first-line regimens in the United States, baseline genotype offers minimal clinical benefit and is not cost-effective.
BACKGROUND: US guidelines recommend genotype testing at human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis ("baseline genotype") to detect transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), and protease inhibitors. With integrase strand inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimens now recommended as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), the of baseline genotypes is uncertain. METHODS: We used the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications model to examine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of baseline genotype compared to no baseline genotype for people starting ART with dolutegravir (DTG) and an NRTI pair. For people with no TDR (83.8%), baseline genotype does not alter regimen selection. Among people with transmitted NRTI resistance (5.8%), baseline genotype guides NRTI selection and informs subsequent ART after adverse events (DTG AEs, 14%). Among people with transmitted NNRTI resistance (7.2%), baseline genotype influences care only for people with DTG AEs switching to NNRTI-based regimens. The 48-week virologic suppression varied (40%-92%) depending on TDR. Costs included $320/genotype and $2500-$3000/month for ART. RESULTS: Compared to no baseline genotype, baseline genotype resulted in <1 additional undiscounted quality-adjusted life-day (QALD), cost an additional $500/person, and was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $420 000/quality-adjusted life-year). In univariate sensitivity analysis, clinical benefits of baseline genotype never exceeded 5 QALDs for all newly diagnosed people with HIV. Baseline genotype was cost-effective at current TDR prevalence only under unlikely conditions, eg, DTG-based regimens achieving ≤50% suppression of transmitted NRTI resistance. CONCLUSIONS: With INSTI-based first-line regimens in the United States, baseline genotype offers minimal clinical benefit and is not cost-effective.
Authors: Derrick D Goodman; Yun Zhou; Nicolas A Margot; Damian J McColl; Lijie Zhong; Katyna Borroto-Esoda; Michael D Miller; Evguenia S Svarovskaia Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Calvin J Cohen; Jean-Michel Molina; Pedro Cahn; Bonaventura Clotet; Jan Fourie; Beatriz Grinsztejn; Hao Wu; Margaret A Johnson; Michael Saag; Khuanchai Supparatpinyo; Herta Crauwels; Eric Lefebvre; Laurence T Rimsky; Simon Vanveggel; Peter Williams; Katia Boven Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jose L Casado; Marta Monsalvo; Aurora M Rojo; María Fontecha; Miguel A Rodriguez-Sagrado Journal: Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 5.045
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: Soo-Yon Rhee; Dana Clutter; W Jeffrey Fessel; Daniel Klein; Sally Slome; Benjamin A Pinsky; Julia L Marcus; Leo Hurley; Michael J Silverberg; Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond; Robert W Shafer Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: John Weiser; Yunfeng Tie; Jen-Feng Lu; Jonathan A Colasanti; Robyn Neblett Fanfair; Linda Beer Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 4.423
Authors: Hezhao Ji; Paul Sandstrom; Roger Paredes; P Richard Harrigan; Chanson J Brumme; Santiago Avila Rios; Marc Noguera-Julian; Neil Parkin; Rami Kantor Journal: Viruses Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 5.048
Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Carmen H Logie; Lehana Thabane; Fiona Smaill; Marek Smieja; Ann N Burchell; Beth Rachlis; Jean-Eric Tarride; Abigail Kroch; Tony Mazzulli; Elizabeth Alvarez; Daeria O Lawson; Francis Nguyen; Richard Perez; Hsien Seow Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Davide F Bavaro; Andrea De Vito; Giuseppe Pasculli; Yagai Bouba; Laura Magnasco; Rachele Pincino; Francesco Saladini; Rossana Lattanzio; Romina Corsini; Serena Arima; Maurizio Zazzi; Francesca Incardona; Barbara Rossetti; Antonia Bezenchek; Borghi Vanni; Antonio Di Biagio Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 20.693
Authors: Ceejay L Boyce; Ingrid A Beck; Sheila M Styrchak; Samantha R Hardy; Jackson J Wallner; Ross S Milne; R Leavitt Morrison; David E Shapiro; Esaú C João; Mark H Mirochnick; Lisa M Frenkel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Shannan N Rich; Veronica L Richards; Carla N Mavian; William M Switzer; Brittany Rife Magalis; Karalee Poschman; Shana Geary; Steven E Broadway; Spencer B Bennett; Jason Blanton; Thomas Leitner; J Lucas Boatwright; Nichole E Stetten; Robert L Cook; Emma C Spencer; Marco Salemi; Mattia Prosperi Journal: Viruses Date: 2020-08-22 Impact factor: 5.818