Comparative cost-efficacy analysis of darunavir/ritonavir and other ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors for first-line treatment of HIV-1 infection in the United States

HIV Clinical Trials

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 133-144

  Brogan, Anita J ^a   Mrus, Joseph ^b   Hill, Andrew ^c   Sawyer, Anthony W ^d   Smets, Erik ^e  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b Tibotec Therapeutics   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^d Department of Statistics   (United Kingdom)

^e JOHNSON AND JOHNSON   (United States)

Author keywords

cost; cost efficacy; HIV; protease inhibitors; treatment na ve

Indexed keywords

ABACAVIR PLUS LAMIVUDINE; ATAZANAVIR PLUS RITONAVIR; DARUNAVIR PLUS RITONAVIR; EMTRICITABINE PLUS TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL; FOSAMPRENAVIR PLUS RITONAVIR; LAMIVUDINE; LOPINAVIR PLUS RITONAVIR; RITONAVIR PLUS SAQUINAVIR; TENOFOVIR; DARUNAVIR; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS PROTEINASE INHIBITOR; RITONAVIR; SULFONAMIDE; VIRUS RNA;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS 1 INFECTION; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; UNITED STATES; ADULT; BIOASSAY; BLOOD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HIGHLY ACTIVE ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY; HIV INFECTIONS; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS 1; MALE; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VIROLOGY;

ADULT; ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY, HIGHLY ACTIVE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; FEMALE; HIV INFECTIONS; HIV PROTEASE INHIBITORS; HIV-1; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; RITONAVIR; RNA, VIRAL; SULFONAMIDES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77956015868     PISSN: 15284336     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1310/hct1103-133     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Life expectancy of individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: a collaborative analysis of 14 cohort studies. Lancet. 2008;372:293-299.
2. Hellinger FJ. The lifetime cost of treating a person with HIV. JAMA. 1993;270:474-478.
3. Holtgrave DR, Pinkerton SD. Updates of cost of illness and quality of life estimates for use in economic evaluations of HIV prevention programs. J Acquir Immune Defi c Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1997;16:54-62.
4. Schackman BR, Gebo KA, Walensky RP, et al. The lifetime cost of current human immunodefi ciency virus care in the United States. Med Care. 2006;44:990-997.
5. Yamashita TE, Phair JP, Munoz A, et al. Immunologic and virologic response to highly active antiretroviral therapy in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. AIDS. 2001;15: 735-746.
6. Powderly WG, Saag MS, Chapman S, et al. Predictors of optimal virological response to potent antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 1999;13:1873-1880.
7. Gross R, Yip B, Lo Re V 3rd, et al. A simple, dynamic measure of antiretroviral therapy adherence predicts failure to maintain HIV-1 suppression. J Infect Dis. 2006;194: 1108-1114.
8. Legorreta A, Yu A, Chernicoff H, et al. Adherence to combined lamivudine + zidovudine versus individual components: a community-based retrospective medicaid claims analysis. AIDS Care. 2005;17:938-948.
9. Maitland D, Jackson A, Osorio J, et al. Switching from twice-daily abacavir and lamivudine to the once-daily fi xed-dose combination tablet of abacavir and lamivudine improves patient adherence and satisfaction with therapy. HIV Med. 2008;9:667-672.
10. Rosenblum M, Deeks SG, van der Laan M, et al. The risk of virologic failure decreases with duration of HIV suppression, at greater than 50% adherence to antiretroviral therapy. PLoS One. 2009;4:e7196.
11. Hammer SM, Eron JJ, Jr., Reiss P, et al. Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2008 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA. 2008;300:555-570.
12. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services. December 1, 2009. Available at: http://AIDSinfo.nih.gov/Guidelines. Accessed December 3, 2009.
13. Smith K, Fine D, Patel P, et al. Effi cacy and safety of abacavir/ lamivudine compared to tenofovir/emtricitabine in combination with once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir through 48 weeks in the HEAT study. Presented at: the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); February 2008; Boston, MA, USA. Abstract 774.
14. Walmsley S, Ruxrungtham K, Slim J, et al. Saquinavir/r (SQV/r) bid versus lopinavir/r (LPV/r) bid plus emtricitabine/ tenofovir (FTC/TDF) qd as initial therapy in HIV-1- infected patients: the Gemini Study. Presented at: the 11th European AIDS Conference (EACS); October 2007; Madrid, Spain. Presentation PS1/4.
15. Ortiz R, Dejesus E, Khanlou H, et al. Effi cacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients at week 48. AIDS. 2008;22:1389-1397.
16. Eron J, Jr., Yeni P, Gathe J Jr, et al. The KLEAN study of fosamprenavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, for initial treatment of HIV infection over 48 weeks: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2006;368:476-482.
17. Smith KY, Weinberg WG, Dejesus E, et al. Fosamprenavir or atazanavir once daily boosted with ritonavir 100 mg, plus tenofovir/emtricitabine, for the initial treatment of HIV infection: 48-week results of ALERT. AIDS Res Ther. 2008;5:5.
18. Molina JM, Andrade-Villanueva J, Echevarria J, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir compared to twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine in ARV-naïve HIV- 1-infected subjects: the CASTLE Study, 48-week results. Presented at: the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); February 2008; Boston, MA, USA. Presentation 37.
19. Cooper D, Zajdenverg R, Ruxrungtham K, et al. Effi cacy and safety of two doses of tipranavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir-based therapy in antiretroviral-naïve patients: results of BI 1182.33. Presented at: the 8th International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection; November 2006; Glasgow, UK. Abstract PL13.4.
20. Gathe JC, Jr., Ive P, Wood R, et al. SOLO: 48-week effi cacy and safety comparison of once-daily fosamprenavir /ritonavir versus twice-daily nelfi navir in naïve HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS. 2004;18:1529-1537.
21. Johnson MA, Gathe JC Jr, Podzamczer D, et al. A oncedaily lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen provides noninferior antiviral activity compared with a twice-daily regimen. J Acquir Immune Defi c Syndr. 2006;43:153-160.
22. Gathe J, daSilva BA, Loutfy M, et al. Study M05-730 primary efficacy results at week 48: phase 3, randomized, open-label study of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) tablets once-daily (qd) versus twice-daily (bid), co-administered with tenofovir DF (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC) in antiretroviral- naïve (ARV) HIV-1 infected subjects. Presented at: the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); February 2008; Boston, MA, USA. Abstract 775.
23. Hicks C, DeJesus E, Wohl D, et al. Once-daily fosamprenavir (FPV) boosted with either 100 mg or 200 mg of ritonavir (r) and combined with abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC): 48-week safety and efficacy results from COL100758. Presented at: the 11th European AIDS Conference (EACS); October 2007; Madrid, Spain. Abstract P5.7/01.
24. Elion R, DeJesus E, Sension M, et al. Once-daily abacavir/ lamivudine and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in antiretroviral-naïve patients: a 48-week pilot study. HIV Clin Trials. 2008;9:152-163.
25. Simpson KN, Rajagopalan R, Dietz B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of lopinavir/ritonavir and atazanavir+ritonavir regimens in the CASTLE study. Adv Ther. 2009;26: 185-193.
26. Basu RP, Grimes RM, Helmy AF. Cost to achieve an undetectable viral load using recommended antiretroviral regimens. HIV Clin Trials. 2006;7:309-318.
27. Sax PE, Losina E, Weinstein MC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of enfuvirtide in treatment-experienced patients with advanced HIV disease. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;39:69-77.
28. Simpson KN, Jones WJ, Rajagopalan R, et al. Cost effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir compared with atazanavir plus ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced patients in the US. Clin Drug Invest. 2007;27:443-452.
29. Simpson KN, Luo MP, Chumney E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir versus nelfi navir as the fi rst-line highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen for HIV infection. HIV Clin Trials. 2004;5:294-304.
30. Simpson KN, Luo MP, Chumney EC, et al. Cost effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir compared with atazanavir in antiretroviral- naïve patients: modelling the combined effects of HIV and heart disease. Clin Drug Invest. 2007;27:67-74.
31. Simpson KN, Roberts G, Hicks CB, et al. Cost- effectiveness of tipranavir in treatment-experienced HIV patients in the United States. HIV Clin Trials. 2008;9:225-237.
32. Hill A, Sawyer W. Effects of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone on the effi cacy of fi rst-line boosted highly active antiretroviral therapy based on protease inhibitors: meta-regression analysis of 12 clinical trials in 5168 patients. HIV Med. 2009;10:527-535.
33. Institute for Quality and Effi ciency in Health Care. Methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German statutory health care system. Version 1.1. September 10, 2008. Available at: http://www.iqwig.de/ index.805.en.html. Accessed April 9, 2009.
34. Lee TA, Divers CH, Leibman CW. Evaluating the effi ciency of treatment in the allergic rhinitis market. J Manag Care Pharm. 2004;10:S3-8.
35. Obradovic M, Mrhar A, Kos M. Cost-effectiveness of antipsychotics for outpatients with chronic schizophrenia. Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61:1979-1988.
36. Annemans L, Hill A, Smets E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of current treatment options in treatment-resistant HIV/AIDS patients in the German setting. Presented at: the 12th European AIDS Conference; November 2009; Cologne, Germany. Poster PE19.5/5.
37. Red Book(TM) for Windows® [computer program]. Version 61127, Volume 53. Montvale, NJ: Thomson PDR; 2009.
38. AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). February 4, 2004. Available at: http://www.natap.org/2004/HIV/020604-03. htm. Accessed April 9, 2009.
39. Molina JM, Andrade-Villanueva J, Echevarria J, et al. Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naïve HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study. Lancet. 2008;372:646-655.
40. Boyle BA, Jayaweera D, Witt MD, et al. Randomization to once-daily stavudine extended release/lamivudine/ efavirenz versus a more frequent regimen improves adherence while maintaining viral suppression. HIV Clin Trials. 2008;9:164-176.
41. Viciana P, Rubio R, Ribera E, et al. Longitudinal study on adherence, treatment satisfaction, and effectiveness of once-daily versus twice-daily antiretroviral therapy in a Spanish cohort of HIV-infected patients (CUVA study). Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2008;26:127-134.
42. Hill A, Sawyer W, Gazzard B. Effects of nucleoside analogues versus ritonavir boosted protease inhibitors on lipid levels-analysis of 12 clinical trials in 4231 antiretroviral naïve patients. Presented at: the XVII World AIDS Conference; August 2008; Mexico City, Mexico. Abstract THPE0167.