Cost Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Triple Therapy in the Long-Term Management of HIV Patients: Analysis Using Evidence from the PIVOT Trial

BACKGROUND: Protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy can maintain virological suppression in the majority of patients once it has been established on triple therapy and may also have the potential for substantial cost savings arising from the use of fewer drugs. However, the cost effectiveness of PI monotherapy has yet to be demonstrated. OBJECTIVES: In this study we examine the cost effectiveness of PI monotherapy with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of viral load rebound compared with ongoing triple therapy (OT) in patients with suppressed viral load on combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the UK. METHODS: The analysis used data from the PIVOT trial in which HIV-positive adults with suppressed viral load for ≥24 weeks on combination ART were randomised to maintain OT or to a strategy of PI monotherapy with prompt return to combination therapy if viral load rebounded. A cost-effectiveness analysis including long-term modelling was conducted. Main outcomes included UK National Health Service (NHS) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with comparative results presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: PI monotherapy was cost saving as a result of large savings in ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of QALYs in the within-trial analysis and marginally less effective with lifetime modelling. In the base-case analysis over 3 years, the incremental total cost per patient was -£6424.11 (95 % confidence interval -7418.84 to -5429.38) and incremental QALYs were 0.0051 (95 % CI -0.0479 to 0.0582), resulting in PI monotherapy 'dominating' OT. Multiple scenario analyses found that PI monotherapy was cost saving with no marked differences in QALYs. Modelling of lifetime costs and QALYs showed that PI monotherapy was associated with significant cost savings and was marginally less effective; PI monotherapy was cost effective at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds in all but one scenario analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Under most assumptions, PI monotherapy appears to be a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with OT for HIV-infected patients who have achieved sustained virological suppression

Long-term efficacy and safety of a treatment strategy for HIV infection using protease inhibitor monotherapy: 8-year routine clinical care follow-up from a randomised, controlled, open-label pragmatic trial (PIVOT).

BACKGROUND: Treatment-simplification strategies are important tools for patient-centred management. We evaluated long-term outcomes from a PI monotherapy switch strategy. METHODS: Eligible participants attending 43 UK treatment centres had a viral load (VL) below 50 copies/ml for at least 24 weeks on combination ART. Participants were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected PI monotherapy (PI-mono) with prompt return to combination therapy if VL rebounded. The primary outcome, previously reported, was loss of future drug options after 3 years, defined as new intermediate/high level resistance to at least one drug to which the participant's virus was considered sensitive at trial entry. Here we report resistance and disease outcomes after further extended follow-up in routine care. The study was registered as ISRCTN04857074. FINDINGS: We randomised 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296) between Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010 and followed them for a median of more than 8 years (100 months) until 2018. At the end of this follow-up time, one or more future drug options had been lost in 7 participants in the OT group and 6 in the PI-mono group; estimated cumulative risk by 8 years of 2.7% and 2.1% respectively (difference -0.6%, 95% CI -3.2% to 2.0%). Only one PI-mono participant developed resistance to the protease inhibitor they were taking (atazanavir). Serious clinical events (death, serious AIDS, and serious non-AIDS) were infrequent; reported in a total of 12 (4.1%) participants in the OT group and 23 (7.8%) in the PI-mono group (P = 0.08) over the entire follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: A strategy of PI monotherapy, with regular VL monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment following rebound, preserved future treatment options. Findings confirm the high genetic barrier to resistance of the PI drug class that makes them well suited for creative, patient-centred, treatment-simplification approaches. The possibility of a small excess risk of serious clinical events with the PI monotherapy strategy cannot be excluded. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Neurocognitive function in HIV-infected patients: comparison of two methods to define impairment

To compare two definitions of neurocognitive impairment (NCI) in a large clinical trial of effectively-treated HIV-infected adults at baselin

Neurocognitive function in HIV-infected patients: comparison of two methods to define impairment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two definitions of neurocognitive impairment (NCI) in a large clinical trial of effectively-treated HIV-infected adults at baseline. METHODS: Hopkins Verbal Learning test-Revised (HVLT-R), Colour Trail (CTT) and Grooved Pegboard (GPT) tests were applied exploring five cognitive domains. Raw scores were transformed into Z-scores and NCI defined as summary NPZ-5 score one standard deviation below the mean of the normative dataset (i.e. <-1SD) or Z-scores <-1SD in at least two individual domains (categorical scale). Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to explore the contribution of individual tests to the total variance. RESULTS: Mean NPZ-5 score was -0.72 (SD 0.98) and 178/548 (32%) participants had NPZ-5 scores <-1SD. When impairment was defined as <-1SD in at least two individual tests, 283 (52%) patients were impaired. Strong correlations between the two components of the HVLT-R test (learning/recall) (r = 0.73), and the CTT and (attention/executive functioning) (r = 0.66) were observed. PCA showed a clustering with three components accounting for 88% of the total variance. When patients who scored <-1SD only in two correlated tests were considered as not impaired, prevalence of NCI was 43%. When correlated test scores were averaged, 36% of participants had NPZ-3 scores <-1SD and 32% underperformed in at least two individual tests. CONCLUSION: Controlling for differential contribution of individual test-scores on the overall performance and the level of correlation between components of the test battery used appear to be important when testing cognitive function. These two factors are likely to affect both summary scores and categorical scales in defining cognitive impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT: 2007-006448-23 and ISRCTN04857074