The long-term impact and value of curative therapy for HIV: a modelling analysis

INTRODUCTION: Curative therapies (CTx) to achieve durable remission of HIV disease without the need for antiretroviral therapy (ART) are currently being explored. Our objective was to model the long-term health and cost outcomes of HIV in various countries, the impact of future CTx on those outcomes and the country-specific value-based prices (VBPs) of CTx. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the future health economic impacts of a hypothetical CTx for HIV in countries with pre-existing access to ART (CTx+ART), compared to ART alone. We modelled populations in seven low-and-middle-income countries and five high-income countries, accounting for localized ART and other HIV-related costs, and calibrating variables for HIV epidemiology and ART uptake to reproduce historical HIV outcomes before projecting future outcomes to year 2100. Health was quantified using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Base case, pessimistic and optimistic scenarios were modelled for CTx+ART and ART alone. Based on long-term outcomes and each country's estimated health opportunity cost, we calculated the country-specific VBP of CTx. RESULTS: The introduction of a hypothetical CTx lowered HIV prevalence and prevented future infections over time, which increased life-years, reduced the number of individuals on ART, reduced AIDS-related deaths, and ultimately led to fewer DALYs versus ART-alone. Our base case estimates for the VBP of CTx ranged from $5400 (Kenya) up to$812,300 (United States). Within each country, the VBP was driven to be greater primarily by lower ART coverage, lower HIV incidence and prevalence, and higher CTx cure probability. The VBP estimates were found to be greater in countries where HIV prevalence was higher, ART coverage was lower and the health opportunity cost was greater. CONCLUSIONS: Our results quantify the VBP for future curative CTx that may apply in different countries and under different circumstances. With greater CTx cure probability, durability and scale up, CTx commands a higher VBP, while improvements in ART coverage may mitigate its value. Our framework can be utilized for estimating this cost given a wide range of scenarios related to the attributes of a given CTx as well as various parameters of the HIV epidemic within a given country

The cost-effectiveness of a NSCLC patient assistance program for pemetrexed maintenance therapy in People's Republic of China

Qiang Shi,1 Shanlian Hu,2 Wesley E Furnback,3 Gregory F Guzauskas,3 Jiejing Shen,1 Bruce CM Wang3 1Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 2Shanghai Health Development Research Center, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 3Elysia Group, Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China Background: Eli Lilly and the China Primary Health Care Foundation are currently implementing a patient assistance program (PAP) in China, which allows first-line nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who complete four cycles of pemetrexed induction therapy to receive free, continuous pemetrexed maintenance therapy.Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed maintenance therapy vs basic standard care (BSC) and the economic impacts of providing a PAP for pemetrexed maintenance therapy to NSCLC patients who have completed pemetrexed induction therapy in a Chinese health care setting.Methods: We developed a novel decision-analytic model to evaluate the long-term costs and clinical efficacy of pemetrexed plus BSC vs BSC alone. We utilized a three-state (progression-free survival, progressed disease, and dead) partition survival model for both the clinical and economic aspects of the analysis. Cost and health utility estimates were derived from the literature. We performed a scenario analysis to estimate the real-world impact of introducing the PAP in China by comparing the use of the PAP vs non-PAP. Model uncertainty was evaluated using one-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Compared to BSC, pemetrexed plus BSC resulted in a gain of 0.22 years of life (95% credible range [CR]: 0.04–0.46) and 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (95% CR: 0.04–0.26) per patient, at an increased cost of $28,105 (95$22,720 to $48,646) without a PAP and$3,068 (95% CR: −$1,263 to$9,163) with a PAP. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for pemetrexed plus BSC vs BSC alone was cost-prohibitive at $222,700 for non-PAP, but cost-effective at$24,319 with a PAP.Conclusion: Our study suggests that maintenance pemetrexed therapy following pemetrexed induction for patients with advanced NSCLC is likely to be highly non-cost-effective in the absence of a PAP, but the pending implementation of the PAP promises to make it cost-effective, with a >90% probability of cost-effectiveness at a Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold per quality-adjusted life year. Keywords: non-small-cell lung cancer, pemetrexed, patient assistance program, cost–utility analysis, basic standard car

Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature

Purpose:With rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice.Methods:We report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review.Results:The empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients.Conclusion:To advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important