MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991424058 · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2019.19174

Long-Term Benefits of Rapid Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation in Reducing Medical and Overall Health Care Costs Among Medicaid-Covered Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus

2019· article· en· W2991424058 on OpenAlexaff
Carmela Benson, Bruno Émond, Hela Romdhani, Patrick Lefèbvre, Aurélie Côté‐Sergent, Azadeh Shohoudi, Neeta Tandon, Wing Chow, Keith Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedicaidPharmacyRegimenProtease inhibitor (pharmacology)Reverse-transcriptase inhibitorHealth careInternal medicinePediatricsAntiretroviral therapyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral loadFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: New guidelines for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) suggest that morbidity and mortality could be reduced if antiretroviral therapy (ART) was initiated immediately after diagnosis, regardless of CD4 cell count. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world time to ART initiation and describe medical, pharmacy, and total health care costs in the 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month periods after HIV diagnosis based on time to ART initiation among Medicaid-covered patients. METHODS: Multistate Medicaid data (January 2012-March 2017) was used to identify adults with HIV-1 initiating ART ≤ 360 days of initial HIV-1 diagnosis. People living with HIV (PLWH) were sorted into mutually exclusive cohorts based on time from diagnosis to ART initiation (≤ 14 days, > 14 to ≤ 60 days, > 60 to ≤ 180 days, and > 180 to ≤ 360 days). ART regimen had to include a protease inhibitor, an integrase strand transfer inhibitor, or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, with ≥ 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Medical, pharmacy, and total health care costs in the 6, 12, 24, and 36 months following HIV diagnosis were stratified by timeliness of ART initiation. RESULTS: Of 974 patients, 347 (35.6%) initiated ART > 360 days after diagnosis and were excluded. Among the remaining 627 eligible patients, mean age was 39.9 years, 42.7% were female, and 53.9% were black. Among them, 128 (20.4%) were treated ≤ 14 days, 228 (36.4%) between > 14 and ≤ 60 days, 163 (26.0%) between > 60 and ≤ 180 days, and 108 (17.2%) between > 180 and ≤ 360 days. Among patients treated ≤ 180 days, 4.6% had ≥ 1 opportunistic infection in the 6-month period before ART initiation; this proportion reached 5.6% for patients treated >180 and ≤ 360 days. Over the 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month periods after diagnosis, per-patient-per-month (PPPM) medical costs were lower for patients who initiated ART ≤ 14 days than for those who initiated > 180 and ≤ 360 days after diagnosis (6 months: $1,611 [≤ 14 days] vs. $3,008 [> 180 and ≤ 360 days]; 12 months: $1,188 vs. $2,110; 24 months: $754 vs. $1,368; 36 months: $651 vs. $1,196). Over the same periods, medical costs generally accounted for > 50% of total health care costs for patients who initiated ART between > 60 and ≤ 180 days and > 180 and ≤ 360 days and for 30%-40% of total health care costs for patients treated ≤ 14 days and between > 14 and ≤ 60 days. Total PPPM health care costs increased with delay of ART initiation in the 36-month period after diagnosis ($2,058 [treated ≤ 14 days] vs. $2,310 [treated between > 180 and ≤ 360 days]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study from 2012 to 2017 of Medicaid PLWH treated with ART, 20.4% initiated ART ≤14 days of HIV diagnosis. Patients with delayed ART initiation accumulated more total health care costs in the 36-month period after HIV diagnosis than those initiated within 14 days, highlighting the long-term benefit of rapid ART initiation. An important opportunity remains to engage PLWH in care more rapidly. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs, which was involved in the study design, interpretation of results, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. Emond, Romdhani, Lefebvre, and Côté-Sergent are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that was contracted by Janssen Scientific Affairs to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Shohoudi was an employee of Analysis Group at the time the study was conducted. Benson, Tandon, Chow, and Dunn are employees and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson. Parts of the material in this study have been presented at the HIV Drug Therapy Meeting; October 28-31, 2018; Glasgow, UK, and the AMCP Annual Meeting; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty PharmacySame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207