To provide current information on pharmacoeconomic outcomes in transplantation for the past 6 years.
Methods
An extensive literature search was undertaken using PubMed and other authenticated Internet sources. Key words used to elicit pertinent studies were “pharmacoeconomics,” “transplantation,” “cost-effectiveness,” “cost-benefit,” “cost-minimization” and “cost-utility” analyses. Studies included in the review contain updated pharmacoeconomic data generated during the past 6 years on economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes. These data are used to describe and analyze the cost of drug therapy used in transplantation.
Results
Background information is included in the review to provide a context from which to evaluate new study material. Data extracted from the studies include significant findings and study limitations. Data were stratified into understanding pharmacoeconomic methods and their application to transplantation, maintenance and induction therapies, and management of and costs associated with adverse events and quality-of-life issues.
Conclusions
Continued evolution of pharmacoeconomic analysis is needed so that optimal care can be provided in the most cost-effective manner. Pharmacoeconomic study, done rationally and logically, is an indispensable tool in determining optimal transplantation regimens.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
The Organ Procurement Network (OPTN). Available at: www.optn.org. Accessed March 9, 2007.
2.
United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). Available at: www.unos.org. Accessed March 9, 2007.
3.
OrtnerNJ. 2005US Organ and Tissue Transplant Cost Estimates and Discussion: The Milliman Research Report.Albany, NY: Milliman Consultants and Actuaries; 2006.
4.
ShiremanTIMartinJEFirstMRWhitingJF. The cost of transplant graft maintenance following solid organ transplantation. Transplant Proc.2001;33:1920–1921.
5.
EisenbergJM. Clinical economics: A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA.1989;262:2879–2886.
6.
TownsendRJ. Post-marketing drug research and development. Drug Intell Clin Pharm.1987;21:134–136.
7.
LakeKD. Pharmacoeconomic and outcomes analyses in solid organ transplantation. Graft.2001;4:544–557.
8.
BootmanJLTownsendRJMcGhanWF. Principles of Pharmacoeconomics.3rd ed.Cincinnati, OH: Harvey Whitney Book Company; 2005.
9.
FinklerSA. The distinction between cost and charges. Ann Intern Med.1982;96:102–109.
10.
JamiesonIRLiporiPHowardRJ. Financial sustainability in transplant programs. Graft.2001;4:424–426.
11.
YoungMPloskerGL. Mycophenolate mofetil: A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in solid organ transplantation. Pharmacoeconomics.2002:20:675–713.
12.
MartinJEFleckPSchroederTJWhitingJFHantoDW. The cost of rejection in liver allograft recipients. Transplant Proc.1998;30:1500–1501.
13.
LakeJRGormanKJEsquivelCO. The impact of immunosuppressive regimens on the cost of liver transplantation: Results from the US FK506 multicenter trial. Transplantation.1995;60:1089–1095.
14.
KeownPABalshawRKruegerHBaladiJF. Economic analysis of basiliximab in renal transplantation. Transplantation.2001;71:1573–1579.
15.
US Renal Data System.USRDS 2006 Annual Data Report: Atlas of End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States.Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases;2006.
16.
CantarovichDKaramGGiral-ClasseM. Randomized comparison of triple therapy antithymocyte globulin induction treatment after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Kidney Int.1998;54:1351–1356.
17.
TchervenkovJFlemmingCGuttmannRDdes GachonsG. Use of thymoglobulin induction therapy in the prevention of acute graft rejection episodes following liver transplantation. Transplant Proc.1997;29:13S–15S.
18.
FlorenceLSHowardDRChapmanPHLiebermanJPerkinsonDTMarksWH. Reduction in the incidence of early rejection in cadaveric renal allograft recipients treated with Atgam induction and sequential mycophenolate mofetil. Transplant Proc.1997;29:313–314.
19.
NashanBMooreRAmlotPSchmidtAGAbeywickramaKSoulillouJP. Randomised trial of basiliximab versus placebo for control of acute cellular rejection in renal allograft recipients. CHIB 201 International Study Group. Lancet.1997;350:1193–1198.
20.
EkbergHBackmanLTufvesonGTydenGNashanBVincentiF. Daclizumab prevents acute rejection and improves patient survival post transplantation: 1 year pooled analysis. Transplant Int.2000;13:151–159.
21.
ShieldCFJacobsRJWyantSDasA. A cost-effectiveness analysis of OKT3 induction therapy in cadaveric kidney transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis.1996;27:855–864.
22.
ChilcottJBHolmesMWWaltersSAkehurstRLNashanB. The economics of basiliximab (Simulect) in preventing acute rejection in renal transplantation. Transplant Int.2002;15:486–493.
23.
HasegawaTHidehikoIMikiS. Cost evaluation of basiliximab treatment for renal transplant patients in Japan. Pharmacoeconomics.2003;21:791–806.
24.
WaltersSJWhitfieldMAkehurstRLChilcottJB. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of Simulect prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc.2001;33:3187–3191.
25.
CromptonJASomervilleTSmithL. Lack of economic benefit with basiliximab induction in liver related donor adult renal transplant recipients. Pharmacotherapy.2003;23:443–450.
26.
LilliuHBrun-StrangCLePenC. Cost-minimization study comparing Simulect vs Thymoglobulin in renal transplant induction. Clin Transplant.2004;18:247–253.
27.
PhamKKraftKThielkeJ. Limited-dose daclizumab versus basiliximab: A comparison of cost and efficacy in preventing acute rejection. Transplant Proc.2005;37:899–902.
28.
PolskyDWeinfurtKPKaplanBKimJFastenauJSchulmanKA. An economic and quality-of-life assessment of basiliximab vs antithymocyte globulin immunoprophylaxis in renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant.2001;16:1028–1033.
29.
BrennanDCSchnitzlerMABatyJD. A pharmacoeconomic comparison of antithymocyte globulin and muromonab CD3 induction therapy in renal transplant recipients. Pharmacoeconomics.1997;11:237–245.
30.
SchommerJCPleilAMPathakDS. Two approaches to comparing hospital charges between cadaveric renal transplant patients who received Orthoclone OKT3 sterile solution or Atgam sterile solution for induction therapy. Clin Ther.1995;17:749–769.
31.
KahanBDRajagopalanPRHallM. Reduction of the occurrence of acute cellular rejection among renal allowgraft recipients treated with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2-receptor monoclonal antibody. Transplantation.1999;67:276–284.
32.
LazzaroCMcKechnieTMcKennaM. Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin in renal transplantation in Italy: Cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Nephrol.2002;15:580–588.
33.
McEwanPKeshwarBConwayPCurrieCJ. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of sirolimus versus cyclosporin for immunosuppression after renal transplantation in the United Kingdom. Clin Ther.2006;27:1834–1846.
34.
CraigA-MMcKechnieTKleinWSchindlerTM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of tracrolimus versus cyclosporine microemulsion following kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc.2002;34:1646–1648.
35.
HardingerKLBohlDLSchnitzlerMALockwoodMStorchGABrennanDC. A randomized, prospective, pharmacoeconomic trial of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in combination with thymoglobuliln in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation.2005;80:41–46.
36.
OrmeMEJurewiczWAJumarNMcKechnieTL. The cost effectiveness of tacrolimus versus microemulsified cyclosporin: A 10-year model of renal transplantation outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics.2003;21:1263–1276.
37.
NeylanJFSullivanEMSteinwaldBGossTF. Assessment of the frequency and costs of posttransplantation hospitalizations in patients receiving tacrolimus versus cyclosporine. Am J Kidney Dis.1998;32:770–777.
38.
SuleymanlarGTuncerMSarikayaM. The cost effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil in the first year after living related renal transplantation. Transplant Proc.2001;33:2780–2781.
39.
BakerGMMartinJEJangR. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in primary cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplant Proc.1998;30:4082–4084.
40.
KhoslaUMMartinJEBakerGMSchroederTJFirstMR. One-year, single-center cost analysis of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine following cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplant Proc.1999;31:274–275.
41.
WuthrichRPWeinreichTAmbuhlPMSchwarzkopfAKCandinasDBinswangerU. Reduced kidney transplant rejection rate and pharmacoeconomic advantage of mycophenolate mofetil. Nephrol Dial Transplant.1999;14:394–399.
42.
SullivanSDGarrisonLPJrBestJH. The cost effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil in the first year after primary cadaveric transplant. US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. J Am Soc Nephrol.1997;8:1592–1598.
43.
HolmesMChilcottJWaltersSWhitbySAkehurstR. Economic evaluation of everlimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in combination with cyclosporine and prednisolone in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplant Int.2004;17:182–187.
44.
TierceJCPorterfield-BaxaJPetrillaAAKilburgAFergusonRM. Impact of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-related gastrointestinal complications and MMF dose alterations on transplant outcomes and healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients. Clin Transplant.2005;19:779–784.
45.
CoukellAJPloskerGL. Cyclosporin microemulsion (Neoral): A pharmacoeconomic review of its use compared with standard cyclosporine in renal and hepatic transplantation. Pharmacoeconomics.1998;14:691–708.
46.
SeikalyMG. Mycophenolate mofetil: Is it worth the cost? The in-favor opinion. Pediatr Transplant.1999;3:79–82.
47.
WuthrichRPWeinreichTSchwarzkopfAKCandinasDBinswangerU. Postmarketing evaluation of mycophenolate mofetil-based triple therapy immunosuppression compared with a conventional azathioprine-based regimen reveals enhanced efficacy and early pharmacoeconomic benefit after renal transplantation. Transplant Proc.1998;30:4096–4097.
48.
Louis-TouizerCNuijtenMJBayleF. Economic contribution of mofetil mycofenolate as preventive immunosuppressive treatment after renal transplantation from cadaverPresse Med.1996;25:1577–1582.
49.
NghiemDDCarpenterBJSchlosserJD. The cost of steroid-free protocols in primary cadaver kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc.2005;37:1797–1799.
50.
KutinovaAWoodwardRSFicciJFBrennanDC. The incidence and costs of sepsis and pneumonia before and after renal transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant.2006;6:129–139.
51.
SinghN. Antifungal prophylaxis for solid organ transplant recipients: Seeking clarity amidst controversy. Clin Infect Dis.2000;31:545–553.
52.
RentzAMHalpernMTBowdenR. The impact of candidemia on length of hospital stay, outcome and overall cost of illness. Clin Infect Dis.1998;27:781–788.
53.
Fungal infections.Am J Transplant.2004;4:110–134.
54.
RayKWBadleyADWiesnerRH. The economic impact of cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation. Transplantation.2000;69:357–361.
55.
ReischigTOpatrnyKJrTreskaVMaresJJindraPSvecovaM. Prospective comparison of valacyclovir and oral ganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk renal transplant recipients. Kidney Blood Press Res.2005;28:218–225.
56.
SeehoferDMeiselHRayesN. Prospective evaluation of the clinical utility of different methods for the detection of human cytomegalovirus disease after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant.2004;4:1331–1337.
57.
VeenstraDLBestJHHornbergerJSullivanSDHricikDE. Incidence and long-term cost of steroid-related side effects after renal transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis.1999;33:829–839.
58.
HornbergerJBestJGeppertJMcClellanM. Risks and costs of end-stage renal disease after heart transplantation. Transplantation.1998;66:1763–1770.
59.
CleemputIKestelootKVanrenterghemYDe GeestS. The economic implications of non-adherence after renal transplantation. Pharmacoeconomics.2004;22:1217–1234.
60.
UbelPA. What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation?Arch Intern Med.2003;163:1637–1641.
61.
PhillipsALWalkerELMartinJEFirstMRHantoDWWhitingJF. Quality of life as a predictor of morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization after solid organ transplant. Transplant Proc.2001;33:1922.
62.
GalbraithCAHathawayD. Long-term effects of transplantation on quality of life. Transplantation.2004;77:S84–S87.
63.
OberbauerRHutchisonBErisJ. Health-related quality-of-life outcomes of sirolimus-treated kidney transplant patients after elimination of cyclosporine A: Results of a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Transplantation.2003;75:1277–1285.
64.
ReimerJFrankeGHPhilippTHeemannU. Quality of life in kidney recipients: Comparison of tacrolimus and cyclosporinemicroemulsion. Clin Transplant.2002;16:48–54.
65.
VasiliadisH-MColletJ-PPenrodJRFerraroPPoirierC. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study of lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant.2004;24:1275–1283.
