RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Dolutegravir (DTG) is widely recommended within three-drug regimens. However, similar efficacy and tolerability have also been achieved with DTG within two-drug regimens in clinical trials. This study evaluated the real-world effectiveness and discontinuations in people living with HIV-1 (PLHIV) switching to DTG with lamivudine (3TC) or rilpivirine (RPV). METHODS: This was a one-arm meta-analysis utilizing data from a systematic literature review. Data from real-world evidence studies of DTG + RPV and DTG + 3TC were extracted, pooled and analysed. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with viral failure (VF; ≥ 50 copies/mL in two consecutive measurements and/or ≥ 1000 copies/mL in a single measurement) at week 48 (W48) and week 96 (W96). Other outcomes included virological suppression (VS; < 50 copies/mL) and discontinuations (W48 and W96). Estimates were calculated for VF, VS as per snapshot (VSS) and on treatment analysis (VSOT), and discontinuations. RESULTS: Pooled mean estimates of VF for DTG + 3TC and DTG + RPV were 0.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4-1.3] and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.0-1.6), respectively, at W48. VSS rate at W48 was 85.0% (95% CI: 82.3-87.5) for DTG + 3TC regimen and 92.4% (95% CI: 85.0-97.7) in the DTG + RPV regimen. The DTG + 3TC and DTG + RPV regimens led to discontinuations in 13.6% (95% CI: 11.1-16.2) and 7.2% (95% CI: 2.1-14.4) of patients, respectively, at W48. Similar results were observed at W96. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with DTG + 3TC or DTG + RPV in clinical practice provides a low rate of VF and a high rate of VS when initiated in virologically suppressed PLHIV with diverse backgrounds.
Asunto(s)
Fármacos Anti-VIH , Infecciones por VIH , Fármacos Anti-VIH/efectos adversos , Infecciones por VIH/tratamiento farmacológico , Compuestos Heterocíclicos con 3 Anillos/efectos adversos , Humanos , Oxazinas/uso terapéutico , Piperazinas , Piridonas/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients frequently require several lines of therapy for treatment of major depressive episodes. This economic analysis details the management of patients who responded inadequately due to lack of efficacy or intolerability to two previous antidepressants in the UK. METHODS: The model included a decision tree and a Markov component. Health states considered in the decision tree were remission, response, no response, withdrawal due to adverse events, relapse, recovery, and recurrence. The time horizon was 24 months. Patients were on third-line treatment for up to a 3-month acute phase and a 6-month maintenance phase. As third-line efficacy data were not available, inputs were calculated by adjusting original second-line data to third-line based on proportionate reductions observed in STAR*D. Equivalent efficacy was assumed for all comparators. Healthcare resource use and utilities were based on UK estimates. RESULTS: Vortioxetine was a cost-effective treatment option at a threshold of £20,000/QALY vs. escitalopram, citalopram, sertraline, and was associated with more health benefits, less costs (was dominant) versus relevant third-line comparators venlafaxine and duloxetine. Agomelatine was found not to be a cost-effective option. The 22-month maintenance phase treatment scenario results were similar to the 6-month base case. LIMITATIONS: Third-line efficacy data were not available. This highlights the need for studies in patients receiving third-line treatment. CONCLUSION: This model provides an overview for the management of patients receiving third-line treatment where limited evidence currently exists. Vortioxetine, with its novel mechanism of action, is expected to be a dominant treatment option versus relevant comparators in the UK.