← The record

DarunavirDARUNAVIR JUNO

Recommended Infectious diseaseNot applicableFirst-line line

Treatment of HIV infection in combination with other antiretroviral agents and co-administered with 100 mg ritonavir once daily, in protease inhibitor naïve patients with evidence of HIV replication (viral load >10,000 copies/mL) and/or CD4 cell counts <500 per cubic millimetre.

5
Submissions
1 resub
2007–10
On the record
$15k–45k
ICER range
1 sourced ICER · 2007
Cost-min
Cost basis

Decisions on record

7 decisions
  • Meeting Nov 2019 Recommended Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
  • Meeting Mar 2016 Recommended HIV infection
  • Meeting Nov 2015 Not recommended HIV infection
  • Meeting Jul 2013 Recommended Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection no PSD
  • Meeting Jul 2011 Recommended HIV infection no PSD
  • Meeting Jul 2010 Not recommended HIV-infection
  • Meeting Nov 2009 Recommended Anti-HIV drug

Access path

5 submissions · public record
  1. TGA registered · DARUNAVIR JUNO
  2. Jul 2007
    Recommended · restricted

    Comparator changed: tipranavir → standard care (i.e. one or more of a group of preferred…

  3. Jul 2007
    Recommended

    Comparator changed: tipranavir → standard care (i.e. one or more of a group of preferred…

  4. Nov 2009
    Recommended · restricted

    Comparator changed: standard care (i.e. one or more of a group of preferred or…

  5. Jul 2010
    Not recommended

    Inappropriate choice of comparator (lopinavir instead of atazanavir); absence of clinical and cost-effectiveness data…

  6. Jul 2010
    Not recommended

    inappropriate choice of comparator (submission nominated lopinavir but PBAC determined atazanavir was more…

RecommendedDeferredNot recommended

Cost-effectiveness

1 sourced ICER · 2007

Cost-minimisation analysis was presented but PBAC rejected the submission before conducting a formal ICER evaluation due to inappropriate comparator choice and lack of efficacy/safety data against the appropriate comparator (atazanavir).

The PBAC concluded that for effectiveness darunavir/ritonavir was non-inferior to lopinavir/ritonavir, and that, while the toxicity profiles were different, the overall impact in terms of cost of management would be similar. PBAC · 2009
Economic model disputedNo head-to-head trial ×2Indirect comparison

Decision context

PopulationProtease inhibitor naïve patients with HIV-1 infection with evidence of HIV replication (viral load >10,000 copies/mL) and/or CD4 cell counts <500 per cubic millimetre, receiving treatment in combination with other antiretroviral agents

Why it was knocked back

  • inappropriate choice of comparator (submission nominated lopinavir but PBAC determined atazanavir was more appropriate), no clinical or cost-effectiveness data provided for comparison against atazanavir, absence of direct or indirect comparison data between darunavir and atazanavir

Submission history

5 entries
DecidedOutcomeComparatorICEREvidence
Jul 2010 Not recommended ritonavir boosted atazanavir (300/100 mg daily) RCT · virologic response (plasma viral load <50 copies/mL)
Jul 2010 Not recommended ritonavir boosted atazanavir RCT · VL
Nov 2009 Recommended · restricted lopinavir with ritonavir RCT · Virological response
Jul 2007 Recommended · restricted tipranavir $15k–45k RCT · Virological response
Jul 2007 Recommended standard care (i.e. one or more of a group of preferred or alternative PIs) and tipranavir RCT · Virological response

Clinical evidence

Trials cited in the PSDs · ClinicalTrials.gov
TrialPhaseNPrimary outcomeStatus
RESIST-2 NA 152 Death terminated

Similar precedents

By decision profile

Regulatory · TGA