Peg-interferon plus ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C: cost-efficacy and pharmacoutilization in clinical practice

The current standard of care for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is combination therapy with Peg-interferon (IFN) alpha-2a or alpha-2b type plus ribavirin (RBV). This antiviral schedule can in fact avoid the three fold mortality rates associated to untreated cases with HCV infection, by inducing viral eradication and liver damage regression, so as to define the patients “definitively cured” from liver disease. This analysis describes the modalities of antiviral treatment in the Veneto region, in particular the therapy-schedule mainly used and compares the cost-effectiveness of treatment with the 2 available Peg-IFNs with strategies proposed as in the every day practice. Twelve on line hepatologic units, centralized by a network program on “Surveillance and Control of HCV Infection in the Veneto Region”, prospectively collected data and, of these, we evaluated 450 subjects that underwent antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis. A post hoc retrospective analysis of cases treated from January 2003 to December 2005 was performed, grouping the study population in 166 cases treated with Peg-IFN alpha-2a (Pegasys®, Roche, fixed-dose of 180 μg/weekly) and 284 that received Peg-IFN alpha-2b (Peg-Intron®, Schering-Plough, weight-adjusted-dose from 50 to 150 μg/weekly), both in combination therapy with ribavirin (Copegus®, Roche, or Rebetol®, Schering-Plough, weight-adjusted-dose of 15 mg/kg/daily). Epidemiological characteristics and cumulative rate of end-of-therapy response and Sustained Virological Response (SVR) were similar in the 2 groups, but 78% of cases treated with Peg-IFN alpha-2b and RBV received a significantly lower dose with respect to the weight-adjusted dose. This event conditioned efficacy to therapy as demonstrated in cases that received a 1 μg/kg (respectively SVR: 49% vs 66%, p < 0,01), particularly in genotype HCV-1 (SVR: 29% vs 51%, p = 0,01), known to be more resistant to IFN-therapy. The overall cost of antiviral therapy in this study population was about € 3,528,000/450 treated cases and considering the 269 that reached SVR (98 and 171, respectively by Peg-IFN alpha-2a or 2b and RBV therapy), the cost/SVR was € 15,632 and € 11,672 in the 2 groups. In conclusion, the optimization of Peg-IFN therapy, that is the use of the full dose, particularly in cases treated with a weight-adjusted Peg-IFN alpha-2b and RBV, at the standard of care dosage of 1.5 μg/kg/week and 15 mg/kg/day respectively, will allow a better efficacy, especially in genotype HCV-1 with an increase of 11% in SVR (43% to 54%) at a lower cost

Awareness, discussion and non-prescribed use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among persons living with HIV/AIDS in Italy: a Nationwide, cross-sectional study among patients on antiretrovirals and their treating HIV physicians

Background: Before Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) was officially recommended and made available, a few surveys among gay and bisexual men, and persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), identified an informal use of antiretrovirals (ARVs) for PrEP among HIV-negative individuals. Before PrEP availability in Italy, we aimed to assess whether PLWHA in Italy shared their ARVs with HIV-negative individuals, whether they knew people who were on PrEP, and describe the level of awareness and discussion on this preventive measure among them and people in their close circle. Methods: Two anonymous questionnaires investigating personal characteristics and PrEP awareness, knowledge, and experience were proposed to HIV specialists and their patients on ARVs in a one-week, cross-sectional survey (December 2013-January 2014). Among PLWHA, a Multivariable Logistic Regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with PrEP discussion with peers (close circle and/or HIV associations), and experience (use in close circle and/or personal ARV sharing). Results: Eighty-seven specialists in 31 representative Infectious Diseases departments administered the questionnaire to 1405 PLWHA. Among specialists, 98% reported awareness, 65% knew the dosage schedule, and 14% had previously suggested or prescribed PrEP. Among PLWHA, 45.6% were somehow aware, discussed or had direct or indirect experience of PrEP: 38% "had heard" of PrEP, 24% were aware of studies in HIV-negative individuals demonstrating a risk reduction through the use of ARVs, 22% had discussed PrEP, 12% with peers; 9% reported PrEP use in close circle and 1% personal ARV sharing. Factors predictive of either PrEP discussion with peers or experience differed between men and women, but across all genders were mainly related to having access to information, with HIV association membership being the strongest predictor. Conclusions: At a time and place where there were neither official information nor proposals or interventions to guide public policies on PrEP in Italy, a significant number of PLWHA were aware of it, and approximately 10% reported PrEP use in their close circle, although they rarely shared their ARVs with uninfected people for this purpose. Official policies and PrEP availability, along with implementation programs, could avoid risks from uncontrolled PrEP procurement and self-administration practices

Maraviroc for previously treated patients with R5 HIV-1 infection

Background CC chemokine receptor 5 antagonists are a new class of antiretroviral agents.Methods We conducted two double- blind, placebo- controlled, phase 3 studies - Maraviroc versus Optimized Therapy in Viremic Antiretroviral Treatment- Experienced Patients ( MOTIVATE) 1 and MOTIVATE 2 - with patients who had R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ( HIV- 1) only. They had been treated with or had resistance to three antiretroviral- drug classes and had HIV- 1 RNA levels of more than 5000 copies per milliliter. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three antiretroviral regimens consisting of maraviroc once daily, maraviroc twice daily, or placebo, each of which included optimized background therapy ( OBT) based on treatment history and drug- resistance testing. Safety and efficacy were assessed after 48 weeks.Results A total of 1049 patients received the randomly assigned study drug; the mean baseline HIV- 1 RNA level was 72,400 copies per milliliter, and the median CD4 cell count was 169 per cubic millimeter. At 48 weeks, in both studies, the mean change in HIV- 1 RNA from baseline was greater with maraviroc than with placebo: - 1.66 and - 1.82 log(10) copies per milliliter with the once- daily and twice- daily regimens, respectively, versus - 0.80 with placebo in MOTIVATE 1, and - 1.72 and - 1.87 log(10) copies per milliliter, respectively, versus - 0.76 with placebo in MOTIVATE 2. More patients receiving maraviroc once or twice daily had HIV- 1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter ( 42% and 47%, respectively, vs. 16% in the placebo group in MOTIVATE 1; 45% in both maraviroc groups vs. 18% in MOTIVATE 2; P&lt; 0.001 for both comparisons in each study). The change from baseline in CD4 counts was also greater with maraviroc once or twice daily than with placebo ( increases of 113 and 122 per cubic millimeter, respectively, vs. 54 in MOTIVATE 1; increases of 122 and 128 per cubic millimeter, respectively, vs. 69 in MOTIVATE 2; P&lt; 0.001 for both comparisons in each study). Frequencies of adverse events were similar among the groups.Conclusions Maraviroc, as compared with placebo, resulted in significantly greater suppression of HIV- 1 and greater increases in CD4 cell counts at 48 weeks in previously treated patients with R5 HIV- 1 who were receiving OBT. (ClinicalTrials. gov numbers, NCT00098306 and NCT00098722.)