<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n
WEDNESDAY, March 11, 2020 (HealthDay News) — Use of tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (F\/TAF) is not cost-effective compared with generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (F\/TDF) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men (MSM), according to a study published online March 10 in the Annals of Internal Medicine<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Rochelle P. Walensky, M.D., M.P.H., from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues estimated the greatest possible clinical benefits and economic savings attributable to the improved safety profile of F\/TAF and the maximum price payers would be willing to pay for F\/TAF versus generic F\/TDF among U.S. MSM using PrEP.<\/p>\n
In the base-case analysis, the researchers found that for the 123,610 MSM receiving PrEP, during a five-year horizon, F\/TAF averted 2,101 fractures and 25 cases of end-stage renal disease compared with F\/TDF, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of more than $7 million per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The maximum fair price for F\/TAF was $8,670 per year at a 50 percent discount for generic F\/TDF and a societal willingness to pay up to $100,000 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the investigators found that the ICER for F\/TAF remained more than $3 million per QALY among persons older than 55 years, and the maximum permissible fair price was $8,970 per year for F\/TAF. <\/p>\n
“At current F\/TAF prices, F\/TAF compared with generic F\/TDF will not be cost-effective in the United States, even in populations at highest risk for F\/TDF adverse events,” the authors write.<\/p>\n
Abstract\/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)<\/a><\/p>\n Editorial (subscription or payment may be required)<\/a><\/p>\n <\/i><\/p>\n