Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:To evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV + r) versus lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both with tenofovir-emtricitabine, in US HIV-infected patients initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy.Methods:A Markov microsimulation model was developed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on CD4 and HIV RNA levels, coronary heart disease (CHD), AIDS, opportunistic infections (OIs), diarrhea, and hyperbilirubinemia. A million-member cohort of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve adults progressed at 3-month intervals through eight health states. Baseline characteristics, virologic suppression, cholesterol changes, and diarrhea and hyperbilirubinemia rates were based on 96-week CASTLE trial results. HIV mortality, OI rates, adherence, costs, utilities, and CHD risk were from literature and experts.Limitations:The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) may be overestimated because the ATV + r treatment effect was based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The QALY weights used for diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, and CHD events are uncertain; however, the ICER remained <$50,000/QALY when these values were varied in sensitivity analyses.Results:ATV + r patients received first-line therapy longer than LPV/r patients (97.3 vs. 70.7 months), had longer quality-adjusted survival (11.02 vs. 10.76 years), similar overall survival (18.52 vs. 18.51 years), and higher costs ($275,986 vs. 269,160). ATR + r patients had lower rates of AIDS (19.08 vs. 20.05 cases/1,000 patient-years), OIs (0.44 vs. 0.52), diarrhea (1.27 vs. 6.26), and CHD events (5.44 vs. 5.51), but higher hyperbilirubinemia rates (6.99 vs. 0.25). ATV + r added 0.26 QALYs at a cost of $6826, for $26,421/QALY.Conclusions:By more effectively reducing viral load with less gastrointestinal toxicity and a better lipid profile, ATV + r lowered rates of AIDS and CHD, increased quality-adjusted survival, and was cost effective (<$50,000/QALY) compared with LPV/r.