PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 28, Supplement 1, pp 1–16

A Review of Economic Evaluations of Darunavir Boosted by Low-Dose Ritonavir in Treatment-Experienced Persons Living with HIV Infection

  • Josephine Mauskopf
  • Lieven Annemans
  • Andrew M. Hill
  • Erik Smets
Review Article

Abstract

Darunavir boosted by low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r), at a daily dose of 600/100mg twice a day (bid), has been shown to be superior to alternative highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens for the management of treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in the phase IIb POWER trials and the phase III TITAN trial.

Economic analyses of different types that have been performed for several countries to investigate the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of DRV/r 600/100mg bid for treatment-experienced people living with HIV (PLHIV) based on the clinical data gathered in the POWER and TITAN trials are reviewed for consistency and their value to different decision-makers is assessed.

Cost-utility analyses for the USA and several European countries indicate that DRV/r-based HAART is cost effective compared with other standard of care protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens in PLHIV with evidence of PI resistance. For all of these countries, the estimated cost-utility ratio is well below typical benchmark values and these ratios are robust, as demonstrated by one-way sensitivity and variability analyses and multi-way probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Studies using other metrics including the average 1-year drug cost per patient with a plasma HIV-RNA level less than 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks, the incremental drug cost per additional patient with a plasma HIV-RNA level less than 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks, the total (antiretroviral and nonantiretroviral) costs during the first year of treatment, and the total healthcare budget impact during the first 5 years of treatment provided further evidence of the positive economic outcomes with the use ofDRV/r in treatmentexperienced PLHIV.

Different measures of economic outcomes are useful for different types of decision-makers and different types of decisions. In general, the results of these different types of analyses will be consistent with each other. For darunavir, the economic analyses reviewed in this paper demonstrate that the use of DRV/r 600/100mg bid in the management of HIV-infected, treatmentexperienced adults who have failed at least one of the other currently available PIs is cost effective and may be cost saving.

References

  1. 1.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents (USDHHS). Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents; 2008 Jan 29 [online]. Available from URL: (http://AIDSinfo.nih.gov) [Accessed 2009 Dec 10]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ghatnekar O, Hjortsberg C, Gisslén M, et al. Medical resource utilization and cost of HIV-related care in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era at a university clinic in Sweden. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 49–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levy A, Johnston K, Annemans L, et al. The impact of disease stage on direct medical costs of HIV management: a review of the international literature. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 35–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colin X, Lafuma A, Costagliola D, et al. Modelling the budget impact of darunavir in the treatment of highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in France. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 183–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mauskopf JA, Kitahata M, Kauf T, et al. HIV antiretroviral treatment: early versus later. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005; 39: 562–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freedberg KA, Losina E, Weinstein MC, et al. The cost effectiveness of combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV disease. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 824–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schackman BR, Freedberg KA, Weinstein MC, et al. Cost effectiveness implications of the timing of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 2478–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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: 69–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hornberger J, Green J, Wintfeld N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of enfuvirtide for treatment-experienced patients with HIV in Italy. HIV Clin Trials 2005; 6: 92–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hornberger J, Kilby JM, Wintfeld N, et al. Cost effectiveness of enfuvirtide in HIV therapy for treatmentexperienced patients in the United States. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2006; 22: 240–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simpson KN, Chumney ECG, Hicks CB, et al. Cost effectiveness of tipranavir in treatment-experienced HIV patients in the USA [poster PIN10]. 11th Annual International Meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2006 May 20–24; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mauskopf J, Brogan A, Martin S, et al. Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults in the USA. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 83–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brogan A, Mauskopf J, Talbird S, et al. US cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100mg bid in treatmentexperienced, HIV-infected adults with evidence of protease inhibitor resistance included in the TITAN trial. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 129–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mauskopf J. Meeting the NICE requirements: a Markov model approach. Value Health 2000; 3: 287–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mauskopf JA, Tolson JM, Simpson KN, et al. Impact of zidovudine-based triple combination therapy on an AIDS drug assistance program. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2000; 23: 302–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Colin X, Lafuma A, Costagliola D, et al. The cost of managing HIV infection in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in France. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 59–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pozniak A, Jayaweera D, Hoy J, et al. Efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients at 96 weeks in the POWER 1 and 2 trials [abstract P7.2/0]. 11th European AIDS Conference; 2007 October 2427; Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Molina JM, Cohen C, Katlama C, et al. Safety and efficacy of darunavir (TMC114) with low-dose ritonavir in treatmentexperienced patients: 24 week results of POWER 3. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007; 46: 24–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clotet B, Bellos N, Molina JM, et al. Efficacy and safety of darunavirritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials. Lancet 2007; 369 (9568): 1169–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katlama C, Bellos N, Grinsztejn B, et al. POWER 1 and 2: combined final 144-week efficacy and safety results for darunavir/ritonavir 600/100mg bid in treatment-experienced HIV patients [abstract]. 9th International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection; 2008 Nov 913; Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Madruga JV, Berger D, McMurchie M, et al. Efficacy and safety of darunavir/ritonavir compared with that of lopinavir/ritonavir at 48 weeks in treatment-experienced, HIV infected patients in TITAN: a randomized controlled Phase III trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 49–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pozniak A, Arasteh K, Molina JM, et al. POWER 3 analysis: 144-week efficacy and safety results for darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in treatment-experienced patients [abstract]. 9th International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection; 2008 Nov 913; Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arastéh K, Grinsztejn B, de Béthune MP, et al. Efficacy analysis of darunavir/r in treatment-experienced POWER 3 patients at Week 96 [abstract P7.2/05]. 11th European AIDS Conference; 2007 Oct 2427; Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Banhegyi D, Katlama C, da Cunha C, et al. Phase III TITAN week 96 final analysis: efficacy/safety of darunavir/r (DRV/r) vs. lopinavir/r (LPV/r) in LPV-naïve, treatment experienced patients [abstract]. 9th International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection; 2008 Nov 913, Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moeremans K, Annemans L, Löthgren M, et al. Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in protease inhibitor-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 107–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moeremans K, Hemmett L, Hjelmgren J, et al. Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100mg bid in treatmentexperienced, lopinavir-naive, protease inhibitor-resistant, HIV-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 147–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hill AM, Clotet B, Johnson M, et al. Costs to achieve undetectable HIV RNA with darunavir-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy in highly pretreated patients: the POWER experience. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 69–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH guidelines for the evaluation of health technologies: Canada, 3rd ed. 2006. Available at: (http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf) [Accessed 2010 Jun 30]
  29. 29.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Single technology appraisal specification for manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence. 2009. Available at: (http://www.nice.org.uk/media/E29/DF/SpecificationForManufacturerSponsorSubmissionofEvidenceDraft.pdf) [Accessed 2010 Jun 30]Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, version 4.2. 2007. Available at: (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacguidelines-index) [Accessed 2010 Jun 30]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal; 2008 June [online]. Available from URL: (http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf) [Accessed 2009 Dec 10]Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 332–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Towse A. What is NICE’s threshold? An external view. Chapter 2. In: Devlin N, Towse A, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund/Office for Health Economics, 2002Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sacristan JA, Oliva J, Del Llano J, et al. ¿Quèes una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España? Gac Sanit 2002; 16: 334–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, et al. A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of “panel-worthy” studies. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 451–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    BHIVA Writing Committee. British HIV Association (BHIVA). Guidelines for the treatment of HIV-infected adults with antiretroviral therapy (2006). HIV Medicine 2006; 7: 487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS). 2009 Guidelines for the clinical management and treatment of HIVinfected adults in Europe; [online]. Available from URL: (http://www.europeanaidsclinicalsociety.org/guidelinespdf/EACS-EuroGuidelines2009FullVersion.pdf) [Accessed 2009 Dec 10]
  38. 38.
    International AIDS Society USA (IASUSA). Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2006 recommendations of the International AIDS Society USA panel. JAMA 2006; 296: 827–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Basu RP, Grimes RM, Helmy A. Cost to achieve an undetectable viral load using recommended antiretroviral regimens. HIV Clin Trials 2006; 7: 309–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ruof J, Dusek A, DeSpirito M, et al. Cost-efficacy comparison among three antiretroviral regimens in HIV-1 infected, treatment-experienced patients. Clin Drug Invest 2007; 27: 469–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lamy A, Jonsson B, Weintraub WS, et al. The cost-effectiveness of the use of clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes in five countries based upon the CURE study. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2004; 11: 460–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kumar S, Williams AC, Sandy JR. How do we evaluate the economics of health care? Eur J Orthod 2006; 28: 513–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shih YC, Mauskopf J, Borker R. A cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line controller therapies for persistent asthma. PharmacoEconomics 2007; 25: 577–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    IQWiG (Instutut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen-Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care). Methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German statutory health care system. Version 1, 24th January, 2008Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Annemans L, Hill A, Smets E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of current treatment options in treatment-resistant HIV/AIDS patients in the German setting [abstract PE19.5/5]. 12th European AIDS Conference; 2009 Nov 1114, Cologne, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brogan A, Soorapanth S, Donatz V, et al. Comparative costefficacy analysis of darunavir/r and other ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors for first-line treatment of HIV-1 infection in Germany [abstract PIN48]. 12th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2009 October 2427; Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Soorapanth S, Brogan A, Mrus J, et al. Comparative costefficacy analysis of darunavir/r for first-line treatment ofHIV infection in theUnited States. Value in Health 2009; 12: A112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smets E, Stoll M, Hill A, et al. Comparative cost-efficacy analysis of darunavir/r and other ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors for first-line treatment of HIV-1 infection in Germany [abstract PE19.5/3]. 12th European AIDS Conference; 2009 Nov 1114, Cologne, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hill AM, Gebo K, Hemmett L, et al. Predicting direct costs of HIV care during the first year of darunavir-based highly active antiretroviral therapy using CD4 cell counts: evidence from POWER. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28 Suppl. 1: 169–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ledergerber B, Lundgren JD, Walker AS, et al. Predictors of trend in CD4-positive T-cell count and mortality among HIV-1-infected individualswith virological failure to all three antiretroviral-drug classes. Lancet 2004; 364 (9428): 51–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Phillips AN, Lundgren JD. The CD4 lymphocyte count and risk of clinical progression: the T cell in HIV infection and disease. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2006; 1: 43–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Holkmann Olsen C, Gatell J, Ledergerber B, et al. Risk of AIDS and death at given HIV-RNA and CD4 cell counts, in relation to specific antiretroviral drugs in the regimen. AIDS 2005; 19: 319–30Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Weber R, Friis-Moller N, Sabin C, et al. HIV and non-HIVrelated deaths and their relationship to immunodeficiency: the D:A:D study [abstract 595]. 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2005 Feb 2225; Boston, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schackman BR, Gebo KA, Walensky RP, et al. The lifetime cost of current human immunodeficiency virus care in the United States. Med Care 2006; 44: 990–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Health Protection Agency (HPA) Center for Infections. A complex picture. HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom; 2006 [online]. Available from URL: (http://www.hpa.org.uk/publications/2006/hiv_sti_2006/default.htm) [Accessed 2009 Dec 10]Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    England R. Are we spending too much on HIV? BMJ 2007; 334: 344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    de Lay P, Greener R, Izazola JA. Are we spending too much on HIV? BMJ 2007; 334: 345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Harling G, Wood R, Beck EJ. Efficiency of interventions in HIV infection, 19942004. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2005; 13: 371–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Beck EJ, Miners AH, Tolley K. The cost of HIV treatment and care. A global review. PharmacoEconomics 2001; 19: 13–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Friis-Moller N, Reiss P, Sabin CA, et al. Class of antiretroviral drugs and the risk of myocardial infarction. New Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1723–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sabin CA, Worm SW, Weber R, et al. Use of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and risk of myocardial infarction in HIV-infected patients enrolled in the D:A:D study: a multi-cohort collaboration. Lancet 2008; 371: 1417–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    DeJesus E, Ortiz R, Khanlou H, et al. Efficacy and safety of darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in ARV treatment-nai ve HIV-1-infected patients at week 48: ARTEMIS [abstract H-718b]. 47th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 2007 Sept 1720; Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Berger DS, Northland R, Scribner A, et al. Effect of baseline factors on virological response to darunavir/r and lopinavir/r at week 48 in TITAN [abstract P7.3/27]. 11th European AIDS Conference; 2007 Oct 2427; Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ammassari A, Trotta MP, Murri R, et al. Correlates and predictors of adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy: overview of published literature. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 31 Suppl.: S123–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Maggiolo F, Ripamonti D, Gregis G, et al. Once-a-day therapy for HIV infection: a controlled, randomized study in antiretroviral-nai ve, HIV-1-infected patients. Antiviral Ther 2003; 8: 339–46Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Negredo E, Bonjoch A, Clotet B. Benefits and concerns of simplification strategies in HIV-infected patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 58: 235–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josephine Mauskopf
    • 1
  • Lieven Annemans
    • 2
  • Andrew M. Hill
    • 3
    • 4
  • Erik Smets
    • 5
  1. 1.RTI Health SolutionsResearch Triangle ParkNCUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of PharmacologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  4. 4.Tibotec Pharmaceuticals BVBAMechelenBelgium
  5. 5.Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Services LLCMechelenBelgium

Personalised recommendations