Skip Navigation LinksHome > July 1, 2014 - Volume 66 - Issue 3 > Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Making Third-Line...
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes:
doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000166
Clinical Science

Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Making Third-Line Antiretroviral Therapy Available in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Model-Based Analysis in Côte d'Ivoire

Ouattara, Eric N. MD, PhD*,†,‡; Ross, Eric L. BA§; Yazdanpanah, Yazdan MD, PhD‖,¶; Wong, Angela Y. BS§; Robine, Marion BS§; Losina, Elena PhD§,#,**,††,‡‡; Moh, Raoul MD, PhD‡,§§; Walensky, Rochelle P. MD, MPH§,**,††,‖‖,¶¶; Danel, Christine MD, PhD*,†,‡; Paltiel, A. David PhD##; Eholié, Serge P. MD, MSc‡,§§; Freedberg, Kenneth A. MD, MSc§,**,††,‖‖,***,†††; Anglaret, Xavier MD, PhD*,†,‡

Supplemental Author Material
Collapse Box


Objective: In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV-infected adults who fail second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) often do not have access to third-line ART. We examined the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of making third-line ART available in Côte d'Ivoire.

Methods: We used a simulation model to compare 4 strategies after second-line ART failure: continue second-line ART (C-ART2), continue second-line ART with an adherence reinforcement intervention (AR-ART2), immediate switch to third-line ART (IS-ART3), and continue second-line ART with adherence reinforcement, switching patients with persistent failure to third-line ART (AR-ART3). Third-line ART consisted of a boosted-darunavir plus raltegravir-based regimen. Primary outcomes were 10-year survival and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in $/year of life saved (YLS). ICERs below $3585 (3 times the country per capita gross domestic product) were considered cost-effective.

Results: Ten-year survival was 6.0% with C-ART2, 17.0% with AR-ART2, 35.4% with IS-ART3, and 37.2% with AR-ART3. AR-ART2 was cost-effective ($1100/YLS). AR-ART3 had an ICER of $3600/YLS and became cost-effective if the cost of third-line ART decreased by <1%. IS-ART3 was less effective and more costly than AR-ART3. Results were robust to wide variations in the efficacy of third-line ART and of the adherence reinforcement, as well as in the cost of second-line ART.

Conclusions: Access to third-line ART combined with an intense adherence reinforcement phase, used as a tool to distinguish between patients who can still benefit from their current second-line regimen and those who truly need third-line ART would provide substantial survival benefits. With minor decreases in drug costs, this strategy would be cost-effective.

© 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins


Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.