Person:

Weinstein, Milton

Background: Data from HIV treatment programs in resource-limited settings show extensive rates of loss to follow-up (LTFU) ranging from 5% to 40% within 6 mo of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. Our objective was to project the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent LTFU from HIV care in West Africa. Methods and Findings: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) International model to project the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of LTFU-prevention programs from a payer perspective. These programs include components such as eliminating ART co-payments, eliminating charges to patients for opportunistic infectionrelated drugs, improving personnel training, and providing meals and reimbursing for transportation for participants. The efficacies and costs of these interventions were extensively varied in sensitivity analyses. We used World Health Organization criteria of ,36 gross domestic product per capita (36 GDP per capita = US$2,823 for Coˆ te d’Ivoire) as a plausible threshold for ‘‘cost-effectiveness.’’ The main results are based on a reported 18% 1-y LTFU rate. With full retention in care, projected per-person discounted life expectancy starting from age 37 y was 144.7 mo (12.1 y). Survival losses from LTFU within 1 y of ART initiation ranged from 73.9 to 80.7 mo. The intervention costing US$22/person/year (e.g., eliminating ART co-payment) would be cost-effective with an efficacy of at least 12%. An intervention costing US$77/person/year (inclusive of all the components described above) would be cost-effective with an efficacy of at least 41%. Conclusions: Interventions that prevent LTFU in resource-limited settings would substantially improve survival and would be cost-effective by international criteria with efficacy of at least 12%–41%, depending on the cost of intervention, based on a reported 18% cumulative incidence of LTFU at 1 y after ART initiation. The commitment to start ART and treat HIV in these settings should include interventions to prevent LTFU.

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.

Background: Computer simulation models can project long-term patient outcomes and inform health policy. We internally validated and then calibrated a model of HIV disease in children before initiation of antiretroviral therapy to provide a framework against which to compare the impact of pediatric HIV treatment strategies. Methods: We developed a patient-level (Monte Carlo) model of HIV progression among untreated children <5 years of age, using the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications model framework: the CEPAC-Pediatric model. We populated the model with data on opportunistic infection and mortality risks from the International Epidemiologic Database to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA), with mean CD4% at birth (42%) and mean CD4% decline (1.4%/month) from the Women and Infants’ Transmission Study (WITS). We internally validated the model by varying WITS-derived CD4% data, comparing the corresponding model-generated survival curves to empirical survival curves from IeDEA, and identifying best-fitting parameter sets as those with a root-mean square error (RMSE) <0.01. We then calibrated the model to other African settings by systematically varying immunologic and HIV mortality-related input parameters. Model-generated survival curves for children aged 0-60 months were compared, again using RMSE, to UNAIDS data from >1,300 untreated, HIV-infected African children. Results: In internal validation analyses, model-generated survival curves fit IeDEA data well; modeled and observed survival at 16 months of age were 91.2% and 91.1%, respectively. RMSE varied widely with variations in CD4% parameters; the best fitting parameter set (RMSE = 0.00423) resulted when CD4% was 45% at birth and declined by 6%/month (ages 0-3 months) and 0.3%/month (ages >3 months). In calibration analyses, increases in IeDEA-derived mortality risks were necessary to fit UNAIDS survival data. Conclusions: The CEPAC-Pediatric model performed well in internal validation analyses. Increases in modeled mortality risks required to match UNAIDS data highlight the importance of pre-enrollment mortality in many pediatric cohort studies.

Background: The International Maternal, Pediatric, and Adolescent Clinical Trials P1060 trial demonstrated superior outcomes for HIV-infected children less than 3 years old initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) with lopinavir/ritonavir compared to nevirapine, but lopinavir/ritonavir is four-fold costlier. Design/methods: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)-Pediatric model, with published and P1060 data, to project outcomes under three strategies: no ART; first-line nevirapine (with second-line lopinavir/ritonavir); and first-line lopinavir/ritonavir (second-line nevirapine). The base-case examined South African children initiating ART at age 12 months; sensitivity analyses varied all key model parameters. Outcomes included life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs; dollars/year of life saved ($/YLS)]. We considered interventions with ICERs less than 1× per-capita gross domestic product (South Africa: $7500)/YLS as ‘very cost-effective,’ interventions with ICERs below 3× gross domestic product/YLS as ‘cost-effective,’ and interventions leading to longer life expectancy and lower lifetime costs as ‘cost-saving’. Results: Projected life expectancy was 2.8 years with no ART. Both ART regimens markedly improved life expectancy and were very cost-effective, compared to no ART. First-line lopinavir/ritonavir led to longer life expectancy (28.8 years) and lower lifetime costs ($41 350/person, from lower second-line costs) than first-line nevirapine (27.6 years, $44 030). First-line lopinavir/ritonavir remained cost-saving or very cost-effective compared to first-line nevirapine unless: liquid lopinavir/ritonavir led to two-fold higher virologic failure rates or 15-fold greater costs than in the base-case, or second-line ART following first-line lopinavir/ritonavir was very ineffective. Conclusions: On the basis of P1060 data, first-line lopinavir/ritonavir leads to longer life expectancy and is cost-saving or very cost-effective compared to first-line nevirapine. This supports WHO guidelines, but increasing access to pediatric ART is critical regardless of the regimen used.