Cost analysis of initial highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens for managing human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients according to clinical practice in a hospital setting

Objective In the study reported here, single-tablet regimen (STR) versus (vs) multi-tablet regimen (MTR) strategies were evaluated through a cost analysis in a large cohort of patients starting their first highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 1-naïve patients, followed at the San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy, starting their first-line regimen from June 2008 to April 2012 were included in the analysis. Methods The most frequently used first-line HAART regimens (>10%) were grouped into two classes: 1) STR of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) + emtricitabine (FTC) + efavirenz (EFV) and 2) MTR including TDF + FTC + EFV, TDF + FTC + atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r), TDF + FTC + darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r), and TDF + FTC + lopinavir/ritoavir (LPV/r). Data were analyzed from the point of view of the Lombardy Regional Health Service. HAART, hospitalizations, visits, medical examinations, and other concomitant non-HAART drug costs were evaluated and price variations included. Descriptive statistics were calculated for baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics; associations between categorical variables and type of antiretroviral strategy (STR vs MTR) were examined using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. At multivariate analysis, the generalized linear model was used to identify the predictive factors of the overall costs of the first-line HAART regimens. Results A total of 474 naïve patients (90% male, mean age 42.2 years, mean baseline HIV-RNA 4.50 log 10 copies/mL, and cluster of differentiation 4 [CD4+] count of 310 cells/μL, with a mean follow-up of 28 months) were included. Patients starting an STR treatment were less frequently antibody-hepatitis C virus positive (4% vs 11%, P=0.040), and had higher mean CD4+ values (351 vs 297 cells/μL, P=0.004) than MTR patients. The mean annual cost per patient in the STR group was €9,213.00 (range: €6,574.71–€33,570.00) and €14,277.00 (range: €5,908.89–€82,310.30) among MTR patients. At multivariate analysis, after adjustment for age, sex, antibody-hepatitis C virus status, HIV risk factors, baseline CD4+, and HIV-RNA, the cost analysis was significantly lower among patients starting an STR treatment than those starting an MTR (adjusted mean: €12,096.00 vs €16,106.00, P=0.0001). Conclusion STR was associated with a lower annual cost per patient than MTR, thus can be considered a cost-saving strategy in the treatment of HIV patients. This analysis is an important tool for policy makers and health care professionals to make short- and long-term cost projections and thus assess the impact of these on available budgets.

[1]  C. Viscoli,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial HIV treatment under Italian guidelines , 2011, ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR.

[2]  A. d’Arminio Monforte,et al.  Italian guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents and the diagnostic-clinical management of HIV-1 infected persons. Update 2015. , 2016, The new microbiologica.

[3]  J. Bartlett Decline in the AIDS and Death Rates in the EuroSIDA study: An observational study , 2004 .

[4]  J. Tolson,et al.  Perspectives on Adherence and Simplicity for HIV-Infected Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy: Self-Report of the Relative Importance of Multiple Attributes of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) Regimens in Predicting Adherence , 2004, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[5]  Ross J. Harris,et al.  Life expectancy of individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: a collaborative analysis of 14 cohort studies , 2008, The Lancet.

[6]  M C Weinstein,et al.  The cost effectiveness of combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV disease. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Susan Swindells,et al.  Adherence to Protease Inhibitor Therapy and Outcomes in Patients with HIV Infection , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  J. Nachega,et al.  Twice-daily versus once-daily antiretroviral therapy and coformulation strategies in HIV-infected adults: benefits, risks, or burden? , 2011, Patient preference and adherence.

[9]  F. Maggiolo,et al.  Simpler Regimens May Enhance Adherence to Antiretrovirals in HIV-Infected Patients , 2002, HIV clinical trials.

[10]  M. Moroni,et al.  Italian guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents and the diagnostic-clinical management of HIV-1 infected persons. , 2011, The new microbiologica.

[11]  M. Moroni,et al.  Insights into the reasons for discontinuation of the first highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimen in a cohort of antiretroviral naïve patients , 2000, AIDS.

[12]  G. Colombo,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV treatment in the clinical practice of a public hospital in northern Italy , 2012, Therapeutics and clinical risk management.

[13]  L. Annemans,et al.  Cost Effectiveness of Darunavir/Ritonavir 600/100mg bid in Protease Inhibitor-Experienced, HIV-1-Infected Adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[14]  B. Yip,et al.  The Combined Effect of Modern Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Regimens and Adherence on Mortality Over Time , 2009, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[15]  M. Witt,et al.  Randomization to Once-Daily Stavudine Extended Release/Lamivudine/Efavirenz Versus a More Frequent Regimen Improves Adherence While Maintaining Viral Suppression , 2008, HIV clinical trials.

[16]  D. Nauwelaers,et al.  Relative Prognostic Value of Self-Reported Adherence and Plasma Nnrti/Pi Concentrations to Predict Virological Rebound in Patients Initially Responding to Haart , 2004, Antiviral therapy.

[17]  M. Moroni,et al.  Italian guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents and the diagnostic-clinical management of HIV-1 infected persons. Update 2011. , 2011, The new microbiologica.

[18]  A. Zolopa,et al.  Non-adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy predicts progression to AIDS. , 2001, AIDS.

[19]  G. Colombo,et al.  Antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients: a proposal to assess the economic value of the single-tablet regimen , 2013, ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR.

[20]  A. Antinori,et al.  One-pill once-a-day HAART: a simplification strategy that improves adherence and quality of life of HIV-infected subjects , 2010, Patient preference and adherence.

[21]  E. Foglia,et al.  The Cost of HIV Disease in Northern Italy: The Payer's Perspective , 2011, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[22]  S. Brun,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Versus Nelfinavir As the First-Line Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Regimen for HIV Infection , 2004, HIV clinical trials.

[23]  E. Foglia,et al.  Cost of human immunodeficiency virus infection in Italy, 2007–2009: effective and expensive, are the new drugs worthwhile? , 2012, ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR.

[24]  E. Foglia,et al.  Cost-Utility Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir versus Atazanavir + Ritonavir Administered as First-Line Therapy for the Treatment of HIV Infection in Italy: From Randomised Trial to Real World , 2013, PloS one.

[25]  P. Volberding,et al.  Antiretroviral therapy and management of HIV infection , 2010, The Lancet.

[26]  A. Mocroft,et al.  Decline in the AIDS and death rates in the EuroSIDA study: an observational study , 2003, The Lancet.