Switching Tenofovir/Emtricitabine plus Lopinavir/r to Raltegravir plus Darunavir/r in Patients with Suppressed Viral Load Did Not Result in Improvement of Renal Function but Could Sustain Viral Suppression: A Randomized Multicenter Trial

Background

Whether tenofovir nephrotoxicity is reversible after its withdrawal is unknown. Furthermore, there are no data on the viral efficacy of raltegravir (RAL) plus ritonavir-boosted Darunavir (DRV/r) in patients with suppressed viral load.

Methods

This multicenter, randomized trial compared renal function and viral efficacy in patients with suppressed viral load treated with RAL+DRV/r and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (TVD), who had been previously on LPV/r+TVD. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with >10% improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 48 weeks calculated with Cockcroft-Gault equation.

Results

58 randomized and treatment-exposed patients were analyzed (28 on RAL+DRV/r and 30 on LPV/r+TVD). Greater than 10% improvement in eGFR was noted in 6 (25%) out of 24 with RAL+DRV/r and 3 (11%) of 28 with LPV/r+TVD, and the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.272, 95% CI -0.067 to 0.354). Sensitivity analyses using three other equations for eGFR showed the same results. Urinary β2 microglobulin, a sensitive marker of tenofovir tubulopathy, significantly improved with RAL+DRV/r than with LPV/r+TVD (-271 versus -64 µg/gCr, p=0.026). Per protocol analysis showed that the HIV-RNA was <50 copies/mL at week 48 in all patients of both arms (24 in RAL+DRV and 29 in LPV/r+TVD).

Conclusions

Switching LPV/r+TVD to RAL+DRV/r did not significantly increase the proportion of patients who showed >10% improvement in renal function among those with relatively preserved eGFR. However, the switch improved urinary β2 microglobulin, suggesting that discontinuation of TDF might be beneficial in the long-term. RAL+DRV/r showed favorable viral efficacy in patients with suppressed viral load.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01294761","term_id":"NCT01294761"}}NCT01294761 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01294761","term_id":"NCT01294761"}}NCT01294761?term=SPARE&rank=2, Umin Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000005116 http://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr.cgi?function=brows&action=brows&type=summary&recptno=R000006083&language=J)     

Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Men Who Have Sex with Men: Risk Calculators for Real-World Decision-Making

Background

Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can be clinically effective and cost-effective for HIV prevention in high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM). However, individual patients have different risk profiles, real-world populations vary, and no practical tools exist to guide clinical decisions or public health strategies. We introduce a practical model of HIV acquisition, including both a personalized risk calculator for clinical management and a cost-effectiveness calculator for population-level decisions.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic model of PrEP for MSM. The primary clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes were the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one HIV infection, and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. We characterized patients according to risk factors including PrEP adherence, condom use, sexual frequency, background HIV prevalence and antiretroviral therapy use.

Results

With standard PrEP adherence and national epidemiologic parameters, the estimated NNT was 64 (95% uncertainty range: 26, 176) at a cost of $160,000 (cost saving, $740,000) per QALY – comparable to other published models. With high (35%) HIV prevalence, the NNT was 35 (21, 57), and cost per QALY was $27,000 (cost saving, $160,000), and with high PrEP adherence, the NNT was 30 (14, 69), and cost per QALY was $3,000 (cost saving, $200,000). In contrast, for monogamous, serodiscordant relationships with partner antiretroviral therapy use, the NNT was 90 (39, 157) and cost per QALY was $280,000 ($14,000, $670,000).

Conclusions

PrEP results vary widely across individuals and populations. Risk calculators may aid in patient education, clinical decision-making, and cost-effectiveness evaluation.     

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Strategies for Early Identification of HIV and HCV Infection in Injection Drug Users

Objective

To estimate the cost, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of HIV and HCV screening of injection drug users (IDUs) in opioid replacement therapy (ORT).

Design

Dynamic compartmental model of HIV and HCV in a population of IDUs and non-IDUs for a representative U.S. urban center with 2.5 million adults (age 15–59).

Methods

We considered strategies of screening individuals in ORT for HIV, HCV, or both infections by antibody or antibody and viral RNA testing. We evaluated one-time and repeat screening at intervals from annually to once every 3 months. We calculated the number of HIV and HCV infections, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results

Adding HIV and HCV viral RNA testing to antibody testing averts 14.8–30.3 HIV and 3.7–7.7 HCV infections in a screened population of 26,100 IDUs entering ORT over 20 years, depending on screening frequency. Screening for HIV antibodies every 6 months costs $30,700/QALY gained. Screening for HIV antibodies and viral RNA every 6 months has an ICER of $65,900/QALY gained. Strategies including HCV testing have ICERs exceeding $100,000/QALY gained unless awareness of HCV-infection status results in a substantial reduction in needle-sharing behavior.

Discussion

Although annual screening for antibodies to HIV and HCV is modestly cost effective compared to no screening, more frequent screening for HIV provides additional benefit at less cost. Screening individuals in ORT every 3–6 months for HIV infection using both antibody and viral RNA technologies and initiating ART for acute HIV infection appears cost effective.     

Coadministration of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Rifampicin in HIV and Tuberculosis Co-Infected Adults in South Africa

Background

In HIV-infected patients receiving rifampicin-based treatment for tuberculosis (TB), the dosage of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) is adjusted to prevent sub-therapeutic lopinavir concentrations. In this setting, South African clinicians were advised to administer super-boosted LPV/r (400 mg/400 mg) twice daily, instead of standard dosed LPV/r (400 mg/100 mg) twice daily. We sought to determine – in routine practice – the tolerability and HIV treatment outcomes associated with super-boosted LPV/r compared to unadjusted LPV/r in combination with rifampicin-based TB treatment.

Methodology/Principle Findings

We conducted a retrospective review of HIV-infected patients who receiving second-line ART with a LPV/r-containing regimen who required concomitant TB treatment. We identified 29 patients; the median age was 36 years (IQR 29–40), 22 (76%) were female, the median CD4 cell count and viral load at first-line ART failure was 86 cells/mm³ (IQR 21–159) and 39,457 copies/mL (IQR 6,025–157,500), respectively. According to physician preference, 15 (52%) of 29 patients received super-boosted LPV/r (400 mg/400 mg) every 12 hours during TB treatment and 14 (48%) of 29 patients received standard dose LPV/r (400 mg/100 mg) twice daily during TB treatment. Among patients who received super-boosted LPV/r there was a trend towards a higher rate of symptomatic transaminitis (27% vs. 7%; p = 0.3), gastrointestinal toxicity (20% vs. 0%; p = 0.2) and a significantly increased need for treatment discontinuation (47% vs. 7%; p = 0.035. The durability of coadministered treatment was significantly shorter in patients who received super-boosted lopinavir/ritonavir with TB treatment compared to patients who received standard lopinavir/ritonavir dosing (log rank, P = 0.036). The rate of virologic failure was not higher in patients with unadjusted LPV/r dosing.

Conclusions/Significance

We observed a high rate of toxicity and need for treatment discontinuation among patients on standard rifampicin-based TB treatment who received super-boosted LPV/r.     

The safety, effectiveness and concentrations of adjusted lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-infected adults on rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy

Objective

Rifampicin co-administration dramatically reduces plasma lopinavir concentrations. Studies in healthy volunteers and HIV-infected patients showed that doubling the dose of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or adding additional ritonavir offsets this interaction. However, high rates of hepatotoxicity were observed in healthy volunteers. We evaluated the safety, effectiveness and pre-dose concentrations of adjusted doses of LPV/r in HIV infected adults treated with rifampicin-based tuberculosis treatment.

Methods

Adult patients on a LPV/r-based antiretroviral regimen and rifampicin-based tuberculosis therapy were enrolled. Doubled doses of LPV/r or an additional 300 mg of ritonavir were used to overcome the inducing effect of rifampicin. Steady-state lopinavir pre-dose concentrations were evaluated every second month.

Results

18 patients were enrolled with a total of 79 patient months of observation. 11/18 patients were followed up until tuberculosis treatment completion. During tuberculosis treatment, the median (IQR) pre-dose lopinavir concentration was 6.8 (1.1–9.2) mg/L and 36/47 (77%) were above the recommended trough concentration of 1 mg/L. Treatment was generally well tolerated with no grade 3 or 4 toxicity: 8 patients developed grade 1 or 2 transaminase elevation, 1 patient defaulted additional ritonavir due to nausea and 1 patient developed diarrhea requiring dose reduction. Viral loads after tuberculosis treatment were available for 11 patients and 10 were undetectable.

Conclusion

Once established on treatment, adjusted doses of LPV/r co-administered with rifampicin-based tuberculosis treatment were tolerated and LPV pre-dose concentrations were adequate.     

HIV Cure Strategies: How Good Must They Be to Improve on Current Antiretroviral Therapy?

Background

We examined efficacy, toxicity, relapse, cost, and quality-of-life thresholds of hypothetical HIV cure interventions that would make them cost-effective compared to life-long antiretroviral therapy (ART).

Methods

We used a computer simulation model to assess three HIV cure strategies: Gene Therapy, Chemotherapy, and Stem Cell Transplantation (SCT), each compared to ART. Efficacy and cost parameters were varied widely in sensitivity analysis. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life expectancy, lifetime cost, and cost-effectiveness in dollars/quality-adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained. Strategies were deemed cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$100,000/QALY.

Results

For patients on ART, discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy was 16.4 years and lifetime costs were $591,400. Gene Therapy was cost-effective with efficacy of 10%, relapse rate 0.5%/month, and cost $54,000. Chemotherapy was cost-effective with efficacy of 88%, relapse rate 0.5%/month, and cost $12,400/month for 24 months. At $150,000/procedure, SCT was cost-effective with efficacy of 79% and relapse rate 0.5%/month. Moderate efficacy increases and cost reductions made Gene Therapy cost-saving, but substantial efficacy/cost changes were needed to make Chemotherapy or SCT cost-saving.

Conclusions

Depending on efficacy, relapse rate, and cost, cure strategies could be cost-effective compared to current ART and potentially cost-saving. These results may help provide performance targets for developing cure strategies for HIV.     

DVT Surveillance Program in the ICU: Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness

Background

Venous Thrombo-embolism (VTE – Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE) – in traumatized patients causes significant morbidity and mortality. The current study evaluates the effectiveness of DVT surveillance in reducing PE, and performs a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

All traumatized patients admitted to the adult ICU underwent twice weekly DVT surveillance by bilateral lower extremity venous Duplex examination (48-month surveillance period – SP). The rates of DVT and PE were recorded and compared to the rates observed in the 36-month pre-surveillance period (PSP). All patients in both periods received mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis unless contraindicated. Total costs – diagnostic, therapeutic and surveillance – for both periods were recorded and the incremental cost for each Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained was calculated.

Results

4234 patients were eligible (PSP – 1422 and SP – 2812). Rate of DVT in SP (2.8%) was significantly higher than in PSP (1.3%) – p<0.05, and rate of PE in SP (0.7%) was significantly lower than that in PSP (1.5%) – p<0.05. Logistic regression demonstrated that surveillance was an independent predictor of increased DVT detection (OR: 2.53 – CI: 1.462–4.378) and decreased PE incidence (OR: 0.487 – CI: 0.262–0.904). The incremental cost was $509,091/life saved in the base case, translating to $29,102/QALY gained. A sensitivity analysis over four of the parameters used in the model indicated that the incremental cost ranged from $18,661 to $48,821/QALY gained.

Conclusions

Surveillance of traumatized ICU patients increases DVT detection and reduces PE incidence. Costs in terms of QALY gained compares favorably with other interventions accepted by society.     

Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment

Introduction

Since alendronate became available in generic form in the Unites States in 2008, its price has been decreasing. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women.

Methods

Microsimulation cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment for U.S. women age 65 and older. We assumed screening initiation at age 65 with central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and alendronate treatment for individuals with osteoporosis; with a comparator of “no screening” and treatment only after fracture occurrence. We evaluated annual alendronate costs of $20 through $800; outcome measures included fractures; nursing home admission; medication adverse events; death; costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2010 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. A lifetime time horizon was used, and direct costs were included. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Base-case analysis results showed that at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less, osteoporosis screening followed by treatment was cost-saving, resulting in lower total costs than no screening as well as more QALYs (10.6 additional quality-adjusted life-days). When assuming alendronate costs of $400 through $800, screening and treatment resulted in greater lifetime costs than no screening but was highly cost-effective, with ICERs ranging from $714 per QALY gained through $13,902 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment was robust to joint input parameter estimate variation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY at all alendronate costs evaluated.

Conclusions

Osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment is effective and highly cost-effective for postmenopausal women across a range of alendronate costs, and may be cost-saving at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less.     

Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Oral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in a Portfolio of Prevention Programs for Injection Drug Users in Mixed HIV Epidemics

Background

Pre-exposure prophylaxis with oral antiretroviral treatment (oral PrEP) for HIV-uninfected injection drug users (IDUs) is potentially useful in controlling HIV epidemics with a significant injection drug use component. We estimated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of strategies for using oral PrEP in various combinations with methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and antiretroviral treatment (ART) in Ukraine, a representative case for mixed HIV epidemics.

Methods and Findings

We developed a dynamic compartmental model of the HIV epidemic in a population of non-IDUs, IDUs who inject opiates, and IDUs in MMT, adding an oral PrEP program (tenofovir/emtricitabine, 49% susceptibility reduction) for uninfected IDUs. We analyzed intervention portfolios consisting of oral PrEP (25% or 50% of uninfected IDUs), MMT (25% of IDUs), and ART (80% of all eligible patients). We measured health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), HIV prevalence, HIV infections averted, and incremental cost effectiveness. A combination of PrEP for 50% of IDUs and MMT lowered HIV prevalence the most in both IDUs and the general population. ART combined with MMT and PrEP (50% access) averted the most infections (14,267). For a PrEP cost of $950, the most cost-effective strategy was MMT, at $520/QALY gained versus no intervention. The next most cost-effective strategy consisted of MMT and ART, costing $1,000/QALY gained compared to MMT alone. Further adding PrEP (25% access) was also cost effective by World Health Organization standards, at $1,700/QALY gained. PrEP alone became as cost effective as MMT at a cost of $650, and cost saving at $370 or less.

Conclusions

Oral PrEP for IDUs can be part of an effective and cost-effective strategy to control HIV in regions where injection drug use is a significant driver of the epidemic. Where budgets are limited, focusing on MMT and ART access should be the priority, unless PrEP has low cost.     

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

Objective

To estimate the lifetime cost utility of two antiretroviral regimens (once-daily atazanavir plus ritonavir [ATV+r] versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/r]) in Italian human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients naïve to treatment.

Design

With this observational retrospective study we collected the clinical data of a cohort of HIV-infected patients receiving first-line treatment with LPV/r or ATV+r.

Methodology

A Markov microsimulation model including direct costs and health outcomes of first- and second-line highly active retroviral therapy was developed from a third-party (Italian National Healthcare Service) payer’s perspective. Health and monetary outcomes associated with the long-term use of ATV+r and LPV/r regimens were evaluated on the basis of eight health states, incidence of diarrhoea and hyperbilirubinemia, AIDS events, opportunistic infections, coronary heart disease events and, for the first time in an economic evaluation, chronic kidney disease (CKD) events. In order to account for possible deviations between real-life data and randomised controlled trial results, a second control arm (ATV+r 2) was created with differential transition probabilities taken from the literature.

Results

The average survival was 24.061 years for patients receiving LPV/r, 24.081 and 24.084 for those receiving ATV+r 1 and 2 respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for the patients receiving LPV/r than those receiving ATV+r (13.322 vs. 13.060 and 13.261 for ATV+r 1 and 2). The cost-utility values were 15,310.56 for LPV/r, 15,902.99 and 15,524.85 for ATV+r 1 and 2.

Conclusions

Using real-life data, the model produced significantly different results compared with other studies. With the innovative addition of an evaluation of CKD events, the model showed a cost-utility value advantage for twice-daily LPV/r over once-daily ATV+r, thus providing evidence for its continued use in the treatment of HIV.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of clinically driven versus routine laboratory monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in Uganda and Zimbabwe

Background

Despite funding constraints for treatment programmes in Africa, the costs and economic consequences of routine laboratory monitoring for efficacy and toxicity of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have rarely been evaluated.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the DART trial (ISRCTN13968779). Adults in Uganda/Zimbabwe starting ART were randomised to clinically-driven monitoring (CDM) or laboratory and clinical monitoring (LCM); individual patient data on healthcare resource utilisation and outcomes were valued with primary economic costs and utilities. Total costs of first/second-line ART, routine 12-weekly CD4 and biochemistry/haematology tests, additional diagnostic investigations, clinic visits, concomitant medications and hospitalisations were considered from the public healthcare sector perspective. A Markov model was used to extrapolate costs and benefits 20 years beyond the trial.

Results

3316 (1660LCM;1656CDM) symptomatic, immunosuppressed ART-naive adults (median (IQR) age 37 (32,42); CD4 86 (31,139) cells/mm³) were followed for median 4.9 years. LCM had a mean 0.112 year (41 days) survival benefit at an additional mean cost of $765 [95%CI:685,845], translating into an adjusted incremental cost of $7386 [3277,dominated] per life-year gained and $7793 [4442,39179] per quality-adjusted life year gained. Routine toxicity tests were prominent cost-drivers and had no benefit. With 12-weekly CD4 monitoring from year 2 on ART, low-cost second-line ART, but without toxicity monitoring, CD4 test costs need to fall below $3.78 to become cost-effective (<3xper-capita GDP, following WHO benchmarks). CD4 monitoring at current costs as undertaken in DART was not cost-effective in the long-term.

Conclusions

There is no rationale for routine toxicity monitoring, which did not affect outcomes and was costly. Even though beneficial, there is little justification for routine 12-weekly CD4 monitoring of ART at current test costs in low-income African countries. CD4 monitoring, restricted to the second year on ART onwards, could be cost-effective with lower cost second-line therapy and development of a cheaper, ideally point-of-care, CD4 test.     

HIV screening via fourth-generation immunoassay or nucleic acid amplification test in the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

At least 10% of the 56,000 annual new HIV infections in the United States are caused by individuals with acute HIV infection (AHI). It unknown whether the health benefits and costs of routine nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) are justified, given the availability of newer fourth-generation immunoassay tests.

Methods

Using a dynamic HIV transmission model instantiated with U.S. epidemiologic, demographic, and behavioral data, I estimated the number of acute infections identified, HIV infections prevented, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies. I varied the target population (everyone aged 15-64, injection drug users [IDUs] and men who have sex with men [MSM], or MSM only), screening frequency (annually, or every six months), and test(s) utilized (fourth-generation immunoassay only, or immunoassay followed by pooled NAAT).

Results

Annual immunoassay testing of MSM reduces incidence by 9.5% and costs <$10,000 per QALY gained. Adding pooled NAAT identifies 410 AHI per year, prevents 9.6% of new cases, costs $92,000 per QALY gained, and remains <$100,000 per QALY gained in settings where undiagnosed HIV prevalence exceeds 4%. Screening IDUs and MSM annually with fourth-generation immunoassay reduces incidence by 13% with cost-effectiveness <$10,000 per QALY gained. Increasing the screening frequency to every six months reduces incidence by 11% (MSM only) or 16% (MSM and IDUs) and costs <$20,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

Pooled NAAT testing every 12 months of MSM and IDUs in the United States prevents a modest number of infections, but may be cost-effective given sufficiently high HIV prevalence levels. However, testing via fourth-generation immunoassay every six months prevents a greater number of infections, is more economically efficient, and may obviate the benefits of acute HIV screening via NAAT.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Dolutegravir in HIV-1 Treatment-Experienced (TE) Patients in France

Objectives

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a new generation integrase inhibitor (INI), dolutegravir (DTG), in France, in treatment-experienced (TE) and INI-naïve HIV-infected adults with at least two classes resistance compared to raltegravir (RAL), by adapting previously published Anti-Retroviral Analysis by Monte Carlo Individual Simulation (ARAMIS) model.

Methods

ARAMIS is a microsimulation Markov model with a lifetime time horizon and a monthly cycle length. Health states are defined as with or without opportunistic infection and death. In the initial cohort, efficacy and safety data were derived from a phase III study comparing DTG to RAL. Antiretroviral treatment algorithms, accounting for patient history, were based on French guidelines and experts opinion. Costs are mainly including treatment costs, routine HIV and opportunistic infection care, and death. Utilities depend on CD4+ cell count and the occurrence of opportunistic infections.

Results

The ARAMIS model indicates in the TE population that DTG compared to RAL over a life time is associated with 0.35 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY; 10.75 versus 10.41) and additional costs of €7,266 (€390,001 versus €382,735). DTG increased costs are mainly related to a 9.1-month increase in life expectancy for DTG compared with RAL, and consequently a longer time spent on ART. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DTG compared with RAL is €21,048 per QALY gained. About 83% and 14% of total lifetime costs are associated with antiretroviral therapy and routine HIV care respectively. Univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrate the robustness of the model.

Conclusion

DTG is cost-effective in the management of TE INI naive patients in France, from a collective perspective. These results could be explained by the superior efficacy of DTG in this population and its higher genetic barrier to resistance compared to RAL. These data need to be confirmed with longer-term real life data.     

Week 120 Efficacy of Tenofovir,Lamivudine and Lopinavir/r-Based Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in Treatment-Experienced HIV Patients

Background

Tenofovir (TDF) and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) were not introduced to China as second-line medications until 2009. The efficacy and safety of TDF/3TC/LPV/r based second-line regimen have not been evaluated in Chinese HIV patients who failed first-line regimens.

Methods

This was a multicenter cohort study recruiting patients from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, and Henan provinces between November 2008 and January 2010. Eighty HIV infected patients failing first-line regimens with serum creatinine lower than 1.5 times the upper limit of normal received TDF+ lamivudine (3TC)+ LPV/r were followed up for 120 weeks. CD4 cell count, viral load, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were monitored at each visit.

Results

At baseline, 31.2% and 48.8% of patients had moderate/high-level resistance to TDF and 3TC, respectively; while 2.5% of patients had only low-level resistance to LPV/r. During 120 weeks of follow-up, virological suppression rate reached over 70% (<40 copies/ml) and 90% (<400 copies/ml), and median CD4 cell count increased from 157 cells/μL at baseline to 307 cells/μL at week 120. Baseline drug-resistance mutations had no impact on the efficacy of second-line antiretroviral therapy. Median eGFR dropped from 104.7 ml/min/1.73m² at baseline to 95.6 ml/min/1.73m² at week 24 and then recovered after week 96.

Conclusion

This study for the first time demonstrated that TDF+ 3TC+ LPV/r was efficacious as second-line regimen with acceptable nephrotoxicity profiles in patients who failed zidovudine or stavudine based first-line regimens in China.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00872417     

Antiretroviral therapy outcomes in HIV-infected children after adjusting protease inhibitor dosing during tuberculosis treatment

Background

Modification of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r)-based antiretroviral therapy is required for HIV-infected children co-treated for tuberculosis (TB). We aimed to determine virologic and toxicity outcomes among TB/HIV co-treated children with the following modifications to their antiretroviral therapy (ART): (1) super-boosted LPV/r, (2) double-dose LPV/r or (3) ritonavir.

Methods and Findings

A medical record review was conducted at two clinical sites in Johannesburg, South Africa. The records of children 6–24 months of age initiating LPV/r-based therapy were reviewed. Children co-treated for TB were categorized based on the modifications made to their ART regimen and were compared to children of the same age at each site not treated for TB.Included are 526 children, 294 (56%) co-treated for TB. All co-treated children had more severe HIV disease, including lower CD4 percents and worse growth indicators, than comparisons.Children in the super-boosted group (n = 156) were as likely to be virally suppressed (<400 copies/ml) at 6 months as comparisons (69.2% vs. 74.8%, p = 0.36). Children in the double-dose (n = 47) and ritonavir groups (n = 91) were significantly less likely to be virally suppressed at 6 months (53.1% and 49.3%) than comparisons (74.8% and 82.1%; p = 0.02 and p<0.0001, respectively). At 12 months only children in the ritonavir group still had lower rates of virological suppression relative to comparisons (63.9% vs 83.3% p<0.05). Grade 1 or greater ALT elevations were more common in the super-boosted (75%) than double-dose (54.6%) or ritonavir (33.9%) groups (p = 0.09 and p<0.0001) but grade 3/4 elevations were observed in 3 (13.6%) of the super-boosted, 7 (15.9%) of the double-dose and 5 (8.9%) of the ritonavir group (p = 0.81 and p = 0.29).

Conclusion

Good short-term virologic outcomes were achieved in children co-treated for TB and HIV who received super-boosted LPV/r. Treatment limiting toxicity was rare. Strategies for increased dosing of LPV/r with TB treatment warrant further investigation.     

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening and the Additional Benefits of Incorporating Smoking Cessation Interventions

Background

A 2011 report from the National Lung Screening Trial indicates that three annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings for lung cancer reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% compared to chest X-ray among older individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Discussion has shifted from clinical proof to financial feasibility. The goal of this study was to determine whether LDCT screening for lung cancer in a commercially-insured population (aged 50–64) at high risk for lung cancer is cost-effective and to quantify the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions in a lung cancer screening program.

Methods and Findings

The current study builds upon a previous simulation model to estimate the cost-utility of annual, repeated LDCT screenings over 15 years in a high risk hypothetical cohort of 18 million adults between age 50 and 64 with 30+ pack-years of smoking history. In the base case, the lung cancer screening intervention cost $27.8 billion over 15 years and yielded 985,284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for a cost-utility ratio of $28,240 per QALY gained. Adding smoking cessation to these annual screenings resulted in increases in both the costs and QALYs saved, reflected in cost-utility ratios ranging from $16,198 per QALY gained to $23,185 per QALY gained. Annual LDCT lung cancer screening in this high risk population remained cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that repeat annual lung cancer screening in a high risk cohort of adults aged 50–64 is highly cost-effective. Offering smoking cessation interventions with the annual screening program improved the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening between 20% and 45%. The cost-utility ratios estimated in this study were in line with other accepted cancer screening interventions and support inclusion of annual LDCT screening for lung cancer in a high risk population in clinical recommendations.