M.A. Chaudhary

Cost-effectiveness analysis of raltegravir in treatment-experienced HIV type 1-infected patients in Spain.

Raltegravir, a novel HIV-1 integrase inhibitor, has superior efficacy with optimized background treatment (OBT) vs. placebo + OBT in treatment-experienced HIV-1 patients. This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of raltegravir from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. A cohort-state-transition model was used to estimate clinical and economic outcomes associated with raltegravir + OBT vs. OBT alone. Subjects were stratified into health states according to HIV RNA level, CD4 count, and opportunistic infection (OI) history, and could transition into different health states over time based on projected long-term efficacy. Each health state was associated with a distinct treatment cost and utility (QoL) score. Model inputs for mortality, resource utilization, unit costs, OI risk, and long-term durability of viral suppression were obtained from clinical trials, published studies, and database analyses. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2007 Euros per quality-adjusted life-year (euro/QALY) gained. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 6% per year based on Spanish cost-effectiveness guidelines. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Five years of treatment with raltegravir + OBT resulted in an additional 4.5 years of undiscounted life expectancy vs. OBT alone. The ICER of raltegravir + OBT vs. OBT alone was euro22,908/QALY and euro31,431/QALY for 3- and 5-year use, respectively. Lower ICERs were observed with lower discount rates (3%) for costs and benefits, lower raltegravir price (20%), and shorter treatment duration (3 years). ICER was also sensitive to analytical time horizon and alternative sources of QoL scores. In treatment-experienced Spanish patients, raltegravir was projected to provide survival benefits and be cost effective.

Cost–effectiveness of raltegravir in HIV/AIDS

Raltegravir is a first-in-class HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with established antiviral efficacy in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. In this article, we summarize pharmacoeconomic evaluations of raltegravir-based treatment regimens, compared with alternative therapies, in the treatment of patients with HIV infection and/or AIDS. Cost–effectiveness evaluations of raltegravir in treatment-experienced patients conducted using a continuous-time, state-transition Markov cohort model suggest that raltegravir, combined with optimized background therapy, falls within the range that would generally be considered cost effective compared with optimized therapy alone in Spanish, Swiss and UK health systems. In treatment-naive populations, raltegravir was evaluated using a three-stage continuous-time state-transition cohort model. Raltegravir-based initiation treatment strategies (first-line raltegravir) were compared with protease inhibitor and non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor initiation strategies, in which raltegravir was retained for salvage therapy. First-line raltegravir was cost-effective versus retaining raltegravir for salvage therapy in several European populations. A separate economic model was used to evaluate first-line raltegravir against two alternative initiation regimens representing standard clinical practice in Australia; raltegravir proved to be cost effective in both scenarios. In all studies examined, results were sensitive to factors including treatment duration, mortality rate, analytic time horizon, health utility weights, cost of raltegravir and optimized therapy, incidence of opportunistic infection and discount rates. Nonetheless, raltegravir remained cost effective under most scenarios.

An economic evaluation of using raltegravir in treatment-experienced HIV-1 infected patients in the UK

Background Raltegravir is the first in the new class of integrase inhibitors. In treatment-experienced patients with advanced HIV disease, raltegravir in combination with optimized background therapy (OBT) showed superior efficacy compared with placebo with OBT at week 16, 24, and 48. This research focuses on the cost-effectiveness of raltegravir from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective.