HIV Cure Strategies: How Good Must They Be to Improve on Current Antiretroviral Therapy?

Abstract

BackgroundWe examined efficacy, toxicity, relapse, cost, and quality-of-life thresholds of hypothetical HIV cure interventions that would make them cost-effective compared to life-long antiretroviral therapy (ART).MethodsWe used a computer simulation model to assess three HIV cure strategies: Gene Therapy, Chemotherapy, and Stem Cell Transplantation (SCT), each compared to ART. Efficacy and cost parameters were varied widely in sensitivity analysis. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life expectancy, lifetime cost, and cost-effectiveness in dollars/quality-adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained. Strategies were deemed cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$100,000/QALY.ResultsFor patients on ART, discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy was 16.4 years and lifetime costs were $591,400. Gene Therapy was cost-effective with efficacy of 10%, relapse rate 0.5%/month, and cost $54,000. Chemotherapy was cost-effective with efficacy of 88%, relapse rate 0.5%/month, and cost $12,400/month for 24 months. At $150,000/procedure, SCT was cost-effective with efficacy of 79% and relapse rate 0.5%/month. Moderate efficacy increases and cost reductions made Gene Therapy cost-saving, but substantial efficacy/cost changes were needed to make Chemotherapy or SCT cost-saving.ConclusionsDepending on efficacy, relapse rate, and cost, cure strategies could be cost-effective compared to current ART and potentially cost-saving. These results may help provide performance targets for developing cure strategies for HIV.

International AIDS Society global scientific strategy: towards an HIV cure 2016

“…Modelling research could help researchers understand which individual cure strategy or group of strategies would be optimal for achieving population-level effects 108 . Both cost-effectiveness (i.e., will the strategy be worth paying for?)…”

First-in-human HIV-remission studies: reducing and justifying risk

“…Some trials will present more predictable risks than others, based on their resemblance to previously evaluated interventions. For instance, one analysis describes three potential therapeutic approaches aimed at HIV-remission: gene-targeted therapy; chemotherapy; and stem cell therapy 17. Some risks presented by these three approaches are relatively well known, for applications aimed at other diseases have been extensively evaluated in human trials and used in patient care.…”

Gene therapy: a possible future standard for HIV care

“…By providing lifelong HIV suppression, gene therapy for HIV could not only combat the epidemic, but also become a costeffective treatment strategy for patients and healthcare systems [8]. This may, in turn, reduce the increasing number of uninsured HIV-infected individuals experiencing economically threatening lifetime out-of-pocket healthcare costs.…”