Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Should Resistance Testing Be Performed for Treatment-Naive HIV-Infected Patients? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Paul E. Sax, Runa Islam, Rochelle P. Walensky, Elena Losina, Milton C. Weinstein, Sue J. Goldie, Sara N. Sadownik and Kenneth A. Freedberg
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Vol. 41, No. 9 (Nov. 1, 2005), pp. 1316-1323
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4463517
Page Count: 8
  • Download ($42.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Should Resistance Testing Be Performed for Treatment-Naive HIV-Infected Patients? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Preview not available

Abstract

Background. Data from the United States and Europe show a population prevalence of baseline drug resistance of 8%-10% among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients who are antiretroviral naive. Our objective was to determine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of genotype resistance testing for treatment-naive patients with chronic HIV infection. Methods. We utilized a state-transition model of HIV disease to project life expectancy, costs, and cost-effectiveness in a hypothetical cohort of antiretroviral-naive patients with chronic HIV infection. On the basis of a US survey of treatment-naive patients from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we used a baseline prevalence of drug resistance of 8.3%. Results. A strategy of genotype-resistance testing at initial diagnosis of HIV infection increased per-person quality-adjusted life expectancy by 1.0 months, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,900 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, compared with no genotype testing. The cost-effectiveness ratio for resistance testing remained less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, unless the prevalence of resistance was ≤1%, a level lower than those reported in most regions of the United States and Europe. In sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness remained favorable through wide variations in baseline assumptions, including variations in genotype cost, prevalence of resistance overall and to individual drug classes, and sensitivity of resistance testing. Conclusions. Genotype-resistance testing of chronically HIV-infected, antiretroviral-naive patients is likely to improve clinical outcomes and is cost-effective, compared with other HIV care in the United States. Resistance testing at the time of diagnosis should be the standard of care.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1316
    1316
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1317
    1317
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1318
    1318
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1319
    1319
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1320
    1320
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1321
    1321
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1322
    1322
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1323
    1323