A prospective economic evaluation of basiliximab (Simulect®) therapy following renal transplantation

被引:30
作者
Lorber, MI [1 ]
Fastenau, J [1 ]
Wilson, D [1 ]
DiCesare, J [1 ]
Hall, ML [1 ]
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Sect Organ Transplantat & Immunol, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
关键词
economic analysis; immunosuppression; renal transplantation;
D O I
10.1034/j.1399-0012.2000.140506.x
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab (Simulect(R)), an anti-interleukin-2-receptor (anti-IL-2R; CD25) chimeric monoclonal antibody, has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the incidence of acute cellular rejection in adult renal allograft recipients (32% vs. placebo, p < 0.01). Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted as part of a U.S. multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial comparing basiliximab plus dual immunosuppressive therapy (cyclosporine modified [Neoral(R)] and corticosteroids) to dual therapy alone. Healthcare resources utilized by the 346 subjects in the 'intent-to-treat' population were prospectively collected over the 1-yr study period. Direct medical costs were determined font all hospitalizations, outpatient provider visits, procedures (excluding the initial transplant procedure), laboratory and diagnostic tests, and immunosuppressants, including basiliximab when administered. Results: Total first-year medical costs were lower for the basiliximab group than for the placebo group ($28 927 vs. $32 300, difference = $3373), although this difference was not statistically significant. First-year hospital casts for treating acute rejection were also lower for the basiliximab group ($9328 vs. $10 761, difference = $1433); however, this difference did not achieve statistical significance. Importantly, the efficacy analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of acute rejection (38 vs. 55%, p < 0.01) in the basiliximab arm, and this was accomplished without increasing the overall cost of care. Fewer basiliximab-treated patients (8 vs. 15%, p = 0.03) were hospitalized. This observation suggested less serious illness and reduced treatment costs among basiliximab-treated patients, because the overall incidence of infection was similar between the groups. The adverse event profile of patients receiving basiliximab was clinically and economically indistinguishable from that of those treated with placebo. Conclusion: Induction immunosuppression with basiliximab, combined with cyclosporine modified and corticosteroids, was therapeutically beneficial and contained medical costs during the initial post-transplant year.
引用
收藏
页码:479 / 485
页数:7
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   RISK-FACTORS FOR CHRONIC REJECTION IN RENAL-ALLOGRAFT RECIPIENTS [J].
ALMOND, PS ;
MATAS, A ;
GILLINGHAM, K ;
DUNN, DL ;
PAYNE, WD ;
GORES, P ;
GRUESSNER, R ;
NAJARIAN, JS ;
FERGUSON ;
PAUL ;
SCHAFFER .
TRANSPLANTATION, 1993, 55 (04) :752-757
[2]   EARLY VERSUS LATE ACUTE RENAL-ALLOGRAFT REJECTION - IMPACT ON CHRONIC REJECTION [J].
BASADONNA, GP ;
MATAS, AJ ;
GILLINGHAM, KJ ;
PAYNE, WD ;
DUNN, DL ;
SUTHERLAND, DER ;
GORES, PF ;
GRUESSNER, RWG ;
NAJARIAN, JS .
TRANSPLANTATION, 1993, 55 (05) :993-995
[3]   A pharmacoeconomic comparison of antithymocyte globulin and muromonab CD3 induction therapy in renal transplant recipients [J].
Brennan, DC ;
Schnitzler, MA ;
Baty, JD ;
Ceriotti, CS ;
Lowell, JA ;
Shenoy, S ;
Howard, TK ;
Woodward, RS .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1997, 11 (03) :237-245
[4]  
DAWSONSAUNDERS B, 1990, BASIC CLIN BIOSTATIS
[5]  
EGGERS P, 1992, SEMIN NEPHROL, V12, P284
[6]  
FERGUSON R, 1994, CLIN TRANSPLANT, V8, P328
[7]  
GORMAN KJ, 1993, TRANSPLANT P, V25, P1690
[8]  
*HCIA INC, 1996, NORM HLTH CARE MEAS
[9]   Reduction of the occurrence of acute cellular rejection among renal allograft recipients treated with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2-receptor monoclonal antibody [J].
Kahan, BD ;
Rajagopalan, PR ;
Hall, M .
TRANSPLANTATION, 1999, 67 (02) :276-284
[10]   COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES OF RENAL-TRANSPLANTATION [J].
KARLBERG, I ;
NYBERG, G .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 1995, 11 (03) :611-622