De‐simplifying single‐tablet antiretroviral treatments: uptake, risks and cost savings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives As more HIV ‐positive individuals receive antiretroviral therapy ( ART ), payers are seeking options for covering these increased and sustained drug costs. Strategic use of available generic antiretroviral ( ARV ) formulations may be feasible. De‐simplifying a single‐tablet co‐formulation ( STF ) into two or more tablets using both brand and generic drugs has been proposed. We determine if voluntary de‐simplification of one STF could be utilized as a cost‐saving strategy. We report on the challenges, uptake, outcomes and cost savings of this initiative. Methods Patients stable on the most commonly used STF (Triumeq ® ) were offered the option of remaining on Triumeq ® or switching to generic abacavir/lamivudine and Tivicay ® between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2018; those starting ART consisting of abacavir/lamivudine/doulutegravir in the same period were offered the option of starting Triumeq ® or generic abacavir/laminvudine and Tivicay ® . No incentives were provided. We examined the acceptance/decline rates, patient satisfaction, health care outcomes and annual cost savings. Results Of 626 patients receiving Triumeq ® , 321 were approached; 177 (55.1%) agreed to de‐simplify. Of patients initiating ART , 62.7% chose the generic co‐formulation. Patients switching to or starting on the generic co‐formulation were more likely to be male, > 45 years old, Caucasian, men who have sex with men ( MSM ) and more HIV ‐experienced, and to have more comorbidities (all P < 0.05). Preference for STF was cited for declining de‐simplification. No concern about generic ARV s was expressed. The rate of viral load > 500 HIV‐1 RNA copies/mL after baseline was 2.7% in switched patients compared with 7.0% in those declining to switch. No de novo resistance occurred. A saving of Cdn$1 319 686 was achieved in the first year. Conclusions Reliance on altruism, while respecting patient autonomy, achieved de‐simplification in > 50% of patients approached, and generated immediate cost savings with no increased risk of adverse events, viral breakthrough or resistance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".