Background US HIV treatment guidelines recommend branded once-daily, one-pill efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir as preferred first-line antiretroviral treatment (ART). With the anticipated approval of generic efavirenz in 2012 in the US, the cost of a once-daily, three-pill alternative (generic efavirenz, generic lamivudine, tenofovir) will decrease, but adherence and virologic suppression may be reduced. Objectives To assess the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of the generic-based three-pill regimen compared to the branded, co-formulated regimen. To project the potential national savings in the first year of a switch to generic-based ART. Design Mathematical simulation of HIV disease. Data Sources Published data from US clinical trials and observational cohorts. Target Population HIV-infected patients eligible to start on or switch to an efavirenz-based generic ART regimen. Time Horizon Lifetime, One-year Perspective US health system Interventions No ART (for comparison), Three-pill Generic ART, and Branded ART Outcome Measures Quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, $/quality-adjusted life expectancy [QALY]). Results of Base-Case Analysis Compared to No ART, Generic ART has an ICER of $21,100/QALY. Compared to Generic ART, Branded ART increases lifetime costs by $42,500, and per-person survival gains by 0.37 QALYs, for an ICER of $114,800/QALY. Estimated first-year savings, if all eligible US patients start on or switch to Generic ART, are $920 million. Results of Sensitivity Analysis Most plausible assumptions about Generic ART efficacy and costs lead to Branded ART ICERs >$100,000/QALY. Limitations The efficacy and price reduction associated with generics are unknown; estimates are intended to be conservative. Conclusions Compared to a slightly less effective generic-based regimen, the cost-effectiveness of first-line Branded ART exceeds $100,000/QALY. Generic-based ART in the US could yield substantial budgetary savings to HIV programs.

BACKGROUND The cost-effectiveness of early antiretroviral therapy (ART) in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in serodiscordant couples is not known. Using a computer simulation of the progression of HIV infection and data from the HIV Prevention Trials Network 052 study, we projected the cost-effectiveness of early ART for such persons. METHODS For HIV-infected partners in serodiscordant couples in South Africa and India, we compared the early initiation of ART with delayed ART. Five-year and lifetime outcomes included cumulative HIV transmissions, life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness. We classified early ART as very cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the annual per capita gross domestic product (GDP; $8,100 in South Africa and $1,500 in India), as cost-effective if the ratio was less than three times the GDP, and as cost-saving if it resulted in a decrease in total costs and an increase in life-years, as compared with delayed ART. RESULTS In South Africa, early ART prevented opportunistic diseases and was cost-saving over a 5-year period; over a lifetime, it was very cost-effective ($590 per life-year saved). In India, early ART was cost-effective ($1,800 per life-year saved) over a 5-year period and very cost-effective ($530 per life-year saved) over a lifetime. In both countries, early ART prevented HIV transmission over short periods, but longer survival attenuated this effect; the main driver of life-years saved was a clinical benefit for treated patients. Early ART remained very cost-effective over a lifetime under most modeled assumptions in the two countries. CONCLUSIONS In South Africa, early ART was cost-saving over a 5-year period. In both South Africa and India, early ART was projected to be very cost-effective over a lifetime. With individual, public health, and economic benefits, there is a compelling case for early ART for serodiscordant couples in resource-limited settings. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others.)

No abstract

BackgroundDespite expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), most of the estimated 2.3 to 2.5 million HIV-infected individuals in India remain undiagnosed. The questions of whom to test for HIV and at what frequency remain unclear.MethodsWe used a simulation model of HIV testing and treatment to examine alternative HIV screening strategies: 1) current practice, 2) one-time, 3) every five years, and 4) annually; and we applied these strategies to three population scenarios: 1) the general Indian population (“national population”), i.e. base case (HIV prevalence 0.29%; incidence 0.032/100 person-years [PY]); 2) high-prevalence districts (HIV prevalence 0.8%; incidence 0.088/100 PY), and 3) high-risk groups (HIV prevalence 5.0%; incidence 0.552/100 PY). Cohort characteristics reflected Indians reporting for HIV testing, with a median age of 35 years, 66% men, and a mean CD4 count of 305 cells/µl. The cost of a rapid HIV test was $3.33. Outcomes included life expectancy, HIV-related direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and secondary transmission benefits. The threshold for “cost-effective” was defined as 3x the annual per capita GDP of India ($3,900/year of life saved [YLS]), or for “very cost-effective” was <1x the annual per capita GDP ($1,300/YLS).ResultsCompared to current practice, one-time screening was very cost-effective in the national population (ICER: $1,100/YLS), high-prevalence districts (ICER: $800/YLS), and high-risk groups (ICER: $800/YLS). Screening every five years in the national population (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and annual screening in high-prevalence districts (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and high-risk groups (ICER: $1,800/YLS) were also cost-effective. Results were most sensitive to costs of care and linkage-to-care.ConclusionsIn India, voluntary HIV screening of the national population every five years offers substantial clinical benefit and is cost-effective. Annual screening is cost-effective among high-risk groups and in high-prevalence districts nationally. Routine HIV screening in India should be implemented.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.