Cost-effectiveness of three alternative boosted protease inhibitor-based second-line regimens in HIV-infected patients in West and Central Africa - Boyer, Sylvie; Nishimwe, M. L.; Sagaon-Teyssier, L.; March, L.; Koulla-Shiro, S.; Bousmah, Marwân-Al-Qays; Toby, R.; Mpoudi-Etame, M. P.; Ngom Gueye, N. F.; Sawadogo, A.; Kouanfack, C.; Ciaffi, L.; et al. (PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2020)
BACKGROUND: While dolutegravir has been added by WHO as a preferred second-line option for the treatment of HIV infection, boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based regimens are still needed as alternative second-line options. Identifying optimal bPI-based second-line combinations is essential, given associated high costs and funding constraints in low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of three alternative bPI-based second-line regimens in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal. METHODS: We used data collected over 2010-2015 in the 2LADY trial/post-trial cohort. Patients with first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC LPV/r; arm A), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (arm B), or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (arm C). Costs (US dollars, 2016), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each country over 24 months of follow-up and extrapolated to 5 years using a simulated patient-level Markov model. We assessed uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, scenarios and prices threshold analysis. RESULTS: In each country, over 24 months, arm A was significantly less costly than arms B and C (incremental costs ranging from US$410-$US721 and US$468-US$546 for B and C vs A, respectively) and offered similar health benefits (incremental QALY: - 0.138 to 0.023 and - 0.179 to 0.028, respectively). Over 5 years, arm A remained the least costly, health benefits not being significantly different between arms. Compared with arms B and C, in each study country, Arm A had a ≥ 95% probability of being cost-effective for a large range of cost-effectiveness thresholds, irrespective of the scenario considered. CONCLUSIONS: Using TDF/FTC LPV/r as a bPI-based second-line regimen provided the best economic value in the three study countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00928187.
PMID: 31273686 PMCID: PMC7018873
Keywords: journalArticle