HIV and AIDS MAIN SECTION 1
    
 Google Custom Search
Cost Effectiveness of Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) vs Atazanavir/ritonavir (Reyataz) in Treatment-experienced HIV Patients

The selection of therapy for antiretroviral-experienced HIV patients should involve balancing multiple factors, including clinical efficacy, adverse-event risk, drug resistance, cost effectiveness, and expected budget impact.

The efficacy of a regimen and its durability, as demonstrated in controlled clinical trials, must be considered in the light of short- and long-term economic impacts on the healthcare system. These impacts may vary based on drug costs, costs of managing adverse events, the regimen's likelihood of contributing to viral resistance to second-line therapies, and the marginal cost differences between other healthcare resources used over a patient's lifetime.

Risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) may be of concern in the selection of antiretroviral therapy because differences in CHD risk factors have been reported for different regimens, and heart disease is both a deadly and a costly condition.

In the current study, published in Clinical Drug Investigation, the authors aimed to estimate the long-term combined effects of HIV disease and antiretroviral-related risk for CHD on quality-adjusted survival and healthcare costs for antiretroviral-experienced patients in the UK, Spain, Italy, and France.

A previously validated Markov model was updated with 2006 cost estimates for each of the 4 countries, and supplemented with the Framingham CHD risk equation. In the model, the average patient was male, aged 37 years, with a baseline 10-year CHD risk of 4.6%.

Patients started regimens containing either lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (Reyataz/r) as the protease inhibitor (PI). Clinical trial results, local drug costs, and AIDS and CHD cost estimates were used to estimate the differences between these 2 therapies.

Studies have shown that atazanavir is associated with fewer blood lipid abnormalities than lopinavir/ritonavir and other PIs, thus it may reduce cardiovascular risk.

Results

There was a significant advantage using lopinavir/ritonavir over atazanavir/ritonavir, according to the study authors; the advantage varied depending on the country's cost structure and assumptions related to drug efficacy.

There was a comparative benefit for treatment-experienced patients in quality-adjusted life-months (QALM) of 4.6 -- the net gain after subtracting quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) lost due to CHD risk.

In addition, there were 5- and 10-year overall cost savings of between 947 and 6594 Euro per patient after 5 years, and an impact ranging from a cost increase of 308 Euro (for France) to a cost saving of 7388 Euro (for Spain) at year 10.

The lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from dominant for Spain to 11,856 Euro per QALY for Italy.

Conclusion

Based on their findings, the authors concluded the following:

Lopinavir/ritonavir was a highly cost-effective regimen relative to atazanavir/ritonavir for the treatment of HIV for each of the 4 countries examined in this study.

The effect of lopinavir/ritonavir on long-term CHD risk was minimal compared with the increased risk of AIDS or death projected for a less efficacious PI-based regimen.

The cost of lipid-lowering drugs and treatment for CHD was insignificant compared with the overall cost savings from lopinavir/ritonavir therapy.

The choice of regimen for antiretroviral-experienced patients should be based on a regimen's expected efficacy and durability for countries with similar cost structure to those examined here.

Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

11/27/07

Reference
KN Simpson, WJ Jones, R Rajagopalan, and others.
Cost Effectiveness of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Tablets Compared with Atazanavir plus Ritonavir in Antiretroviral-Experienced Patients in the UK, France, Italy and Spain. Clinical Drug Investigation 27(12): 807-817. 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FDA-Approved
Treatments
Protease Inhibitors
Agenerase
Agenerase (amprenavir)
Aptivus
Aptivus (tipranavir)
Crixivan
Crixivan (indinavir)
Invirase
Invirase (saquinavir hard gel)
Kaletra
Kaletra (lopinavir/ritonavir)
Lexiva
Lexiva (fosamprenavir)
Norvir
Norvir (ritonavir)
Prezista
Prezista (darunavir)
Reyataz
Reyataz (atazanavir)
ViraceptViracept (nelfinavir)
Nucleoside / Nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
CombivirCombivir (zidovudine/lamivudine)
EpivirEpivir (lamivudine; 3TC)
EmtrivaEmtriva (emtricitabine; FTC)
EpzicomEpzicom (abacavir + lamivudine)
RetrovirRetrovir (zidovudine; AZT)
TrizivirTrizivir (abacavir + zidovudine +lamivudine)
TruvadaTruvada  (tenofovir / emtricitabine)
VidexVidex (didanosine; ddI)
VireadViread (tenofovir)
ZeritZerit (stavudine; d4T)
ZiagenZiagen (abacavir)
non Nucleoside Reverse
Transcriptase Inhibitors
RescriptorRescriptor (delavirdine)
SustivaSustiva (efavirenz)
ViramuneViramune (nevirapine)
Entry Inhibitors
(including Fusion Inhibitors)
Fuzeon (enfuvirtide, T-20)
Selzentry ( maraviroc)
Fixed-dose Combinations
AtriplaAtripla (efavirenz + emtricitabine + tenofovir)
CombivirCombivir (zidovudine + lamivudine)
TrizivirTrizivir (abacavir + zidovudine + lamivudine)
TruvadaTruvada (tenofovir + emtricitabine)