You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other 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
Preview not available
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.
Clinical Infectious Diseases © 2005 Oxford University Press