Search

HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis is a leading cause of AIDS-related mortality. The AMBITION-cm trial showed that a regimen based on a single high dose of liposomal amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBisome group) was non-inferior to the WHO-recommended treatment of seven daily doses of amphotericin B deoxycholate (control group) and was associated with fewer adverse events. We present a five-country cost-effectiveness analysis.The AMBITION-cm trial enrolled patients with HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis from eight hospitals in Botswana, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Taking a health service perspective, we collected country-specific unit costs and individual resource-use data per participant over the 10-week trial period, calculating mean cost per participant by group, mean cost-difference between groups, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per life-year saved. Non-parametric bootstrapping and scenarios analyses were performed including hypothetical real-world resource use. The trial registration number is ISRCTN72509687, and the trial has been completed.The AMBITION-cm trial enrolled 844 participants, and 814 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (327 from Uganda, 225 from Malawi, 107 from South Africa, 84 from Botswana, and 71 from Zimbabwe) with 407 in each group, between Jan 31, 2018, and Feb 17, 2021. Using Malawi as a representative example, mean total costs per participant were US$1369 (95% CI 1314-1424) in the AmBisome group and $1237 (1181-1293) in the control group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $128 (59-257) per life-year saved. Excluding study protocol-driven cost, using a real-world toxicity monitoring schedule, the cost per life-year saved reduced to $80 (15-275). Changes in the duration of the hospital stay and antifungal medication cost showed the greatest effect in sensitivity analyses. Results were similar across countries, with the cost per life-year saved in the real-world scenario ranging from $71 in Botswana to $121 in Uganda.The AmBisome regimen was cost-effective at a low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The regimen might be even less costly and potentially cost-saving in real-world implementation given the lower drug-related toxicity and the potential for shorter hospital stays.European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council, UKAID Joint Global Health Trials, and the National Institute for Health Research.For the Chichewa, Isixhosa, Luganda, Setswana and Shona translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

WHO guidelines recommend dolutegravir plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for second-line HIV therapy, with NRTI switching from first-line tenofovir to zidovudine. We aimed to examine whether dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir, the best-in-class protease inhibitor drug, and whether maintaining tenofovir in second-line therapy is non-inferior to switching to zidovudine.In this prospective, multicentre, open-label, factorial, randomised, non-inferiority trial (NADIA), participants with confirmed HIV first-line treatment failure (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies per mL) were recruited at seven clinical sites in Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Following a 2 × 2 factorial design and stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA concentration, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive a 96-week regimen containing either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (800 mg of darunavir plus 100 mg of ritonavir once daily) in combination with either tenofovir (300 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or zidovudine (300 mg twice daily) plus lamivudine (150 mg twice daily). The NRTI drugs allocated by randomisation were administered orally in fixed-dose combination pills; other drugs were administered orally as separate pills. The previously reported primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Here, we report the main secondary outcome: the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 96 weeks (non-inferiority margin 12%). We analysed this outcome and safety outcomes in the intention-to-treat population, which excluded only those who were randomly assigned in error and withdrawn before receiving trial drugs. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03988452, and is complete.Between July 30 and Dec 18, 2019, we screened 783 patients and enrolled 465. One participant was randomly assigned in error and immediately withdrawn. The remaining 464 participants were randomly assigned to receive either dolutegravir (n=235) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=229) and to receive lamivudine plus either tenofovir (n=233) or zidovudine (n=231). At week 96, 211 (90%) of 235 participants in the dolutegravir group and 199 (87%) of 229 participants in the darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 2·9, 95% CI -3·0 to 8·7), indicating non-inferiority. Nine (4%) participants (all in the dolutegravir group) developed dolutegravir resistance; no participants developed darunavir resistance (p=0·0023). In the other randomised comparison, 214 (92%) of 233 patients in the tenofovir group and 196 (85%) of 231 patients in the zidovudine group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 7·0, 95% CI 1·2 to 12·8), showing non-inferiority and indicating the superiority of tenofovir (p=0·019). The proportions of participants with any grade 3-4 adverse event were similar between the dolutegravir (26 [11%]) and darunavir (28 [12%]) groups and between the tenofovir (22 [9%]) and zidovudine (32 [14%]) groups. There were no deaths related to study medication.Dolutegravir-based and darunavir-based regimens maintain good viral suppression during 96 weeks; dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir but is at greater risk of resistance in second-line therapy. Tenofovir should be continued in second-line therapy, rather than being switched to zidovudine.Janssen.