Two New Drugs for Tardive Dyskinesia Hit the Market.

Ingrezza and Austedo were approved last year. ICER calculations raise questions about their price.

Valganciclovir versus valacyclovir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus: an economic perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Valganciclovir (vGCV) and valacyclovir (vACV) are used in cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to compare the economic impact of both regimens during 1-year follow-up. METHODS: A total of 117 renal transplant recipients at risk for CMV were randomized to 3-month prophylaxis either with vGCV (900 mg/day, n = 60) or vACV (8 g/day, n = 57) and their data used in a pharmacoeconomic analysis. The pharmacoeconomic evaluation involved all direct CMV-related expenses in the first year after transplantation. Sensitivity analysis was employed to examine the effects of various prices of antiviral drugs and diagnostic procedures on overall CMV-related costs. Simulation of the more expensive US healthcare perspective was performed, and a scenario involving costs of acute rejection (AR) was examined. RESULTS: Overall CMV-related costs were significantly lower in the vACV arm; median United States dollars (USD) 3473 (3108-3745) vs. USD 5810 (4409-6757; P < 0.001) per patient, respectively. Our data showed that the critical determinant of the major disparity between the prophylactic regimens was the prophylaxis price. Median cost of prophylaxis in the vACV group was USD 1729 (1527-2173) compared to USD 3968 (2683-4857) in the vGCV group (P < 0.001). In sensitivity analysis of the overall CMV-related costs, the least and the most expensive pharmacotherapy and diagnostic scenarios were used; nevertheless, the vACV arm remained markedly less expensive. Simulation considering the higher physician/nurse and hospitalization fees of the US healthcare system and the scenario including expenditure associated with AR episodes also favored vACV. CONCLUSION: VACV prophylaxis for CMV is associated with a significant 44% lower cost than vGCV at the first year after renal transplantation.

Dosage of angiotensin-II receptor blockers in heart failure patients following changes in Danish drug reimbursement policies.

PURPOSE: National reimbursement policies in Denmark were changed in November 2010 favouring a shift in angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) treatment to generic losartan for heart failure (HF) patients. We examined how changes in reimbursement policies affected the fraction of HF patients up-titrated to optimal or suboptimal ARB dosage. METHODS: A historical cohort study was performed including HF patients with at least one prescription of ARB in the months of May-Jul 2010 (baseline). Patients were considered up-titrated at doses 100, 16 or 160 mg for losartan, valsartan and candesartan, respectively. Individual-level linkage of nationwide registries of hospitalization and drug dispensing in Denmark was used to describe patterns of ARB prescriptions and estimate dosage before and after November 2010. Logistic regression models were used to assess the probability for being up-titrated in the period. RESULTS: Of 6036 individuals included (mean age 73.5 [standard deviation 11.2] years; 51% males), 3346 (55.4%) used losartan, 541 (9.0%) valsartan and 2149 (35.6%) candesartan at inclusion, respectively. 2887 (47.8%) were up-titrated at baseline (May-Jul 2010), followed by 2878 (48.2%) in the three months before the policy change (Aug-Oct 2010), and 2492 (43.7%) in the first months after the policy change (Feb-Apr 2011). Odds ratios for being up-titrated according to time period were 1.02 [0.95-1.09] in Aug-Oct 2010 (before policy change) and 0.84 [0.78-0.90] in Feb-Apr 2011 (after policy change), compared with May-Jul 2010 (reference). CONCLUSION: Probability of being up-titrated in ARB treatment was reduced 20% following changes in drug reimbursement policies.

Improving drug adherence using fixed combinations caused beneficial treatment outcomes and decreased health-care costs in patients with hypertension.

We enrolled 196 patients with hypertension who were already being treated with free-drug combinations of angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) and amlodipine. The free-drug combinations of ARB and amlodipine were replaced with the same dose of the fixed-dose combinations. The average home blood pressure (BP) in all patients receiving fixed-dose combinations was significantly lower than those receiving free-drug combinations (131 ± 10/75 ± 8 vs. 136 ± 11/77 ± 9 mm Hg, P < .01) accompanied with increasing drug adherence. After lowering BP by fixed-dose combinations, the costs for medications decreased by 31% over the 3 months.

Pharmacoeconomic impact of different regimens to prevent cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the cost impact of four different strategies for prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after renal transplantation. METHODS: Hospitalization data and medical resource utilization data were prospectively collected alongside two randomized trials. In the first trial, the patients were randomized to 3-month prophylaxis with either oral ganciclovir (1 g t.i.d., n = 36) or valacyclovir (2 g q.i.d., n = 35), and to the control group (n = 12) managed by deferred therapy. In the second trial, the patients were randomly assigned to 3-month valacyclovir prophylaxis (n = 34) or preemptive therapy with valganciclovir (900 mg b.i.d. for a minimum of 14 days, n = 36) for significant CMV DNAemia. The cost analysis involved all real costs directly related to CMV during the first year after renal transplantation. RESULTS: The mean CMV-associated costs per patient were EUR 4,581, 2,577, 4,968, and 8,050 in patients in the ganciclovir, valacyclovir, preemptive, and deferred therapy groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Valacyclovir prophylaxis was significantly less expensive than any other regimen. The cost of one episode of CMV disease was EUR 7,510 per patient. Due to excessive incidence of CMV disease, deferred therapy was the most expensive strategy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Valacyclovir prophylaxis is less expensive strategy compared with any other regimen.

Comparison of amlodipine/valsartan fixed-dose combination therapy and conventional therapy.

PURPOSE: Single-pill-combination (SPC) antihypertensive drug products have been shown to improve compliance but are associated with higher acquisition costs. This study compared the clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of an SPC of amlodipine/valsartan (trade name Exforge) with the outcomes from conventional combination therapy in patients failing to respond to initial monotherapy with either a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (DHP-CCB) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hypertensive patients failing to respond to monotherapy with either a DHP-CCB or an ARB who were switched to an SPC of amlodipine/valsartan (SPC group) or to treatment that could not include any SPC (control group). The groups were matched for age, gender, race, baseline blood pressure (BP), and comorbidities. The primary outcomes of the study included the proportion of patients achieving BP targets, the absolute change in BP from baseline, the proportion of patients discontinuing drug therapy because of side effects, the proportion of patients non-compliant with drug therapy, and health care resource utilization and costs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Fifty-eight SPC patients achieved BP targets compared with 47 control patients (P = 0.119). The absolute reduction in BP was significantly greater in the SPC group (-22.8 +/- 6.9/-19.3 +/- 5.2 mmHg) than in the control group (-20.6 +/- 6.4/-17.8 +/- 5.6 mmHg) (P < 0.03). Significantly fewer patients discontinued anti-hypertensive therapy because of side effects and noncompliance in the SPC group compared with the control group (both P = 0.042). SPC patients accrued fewer clinic visits, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms but had higher drug acquisition costs. Median medical therapy costs were significantly lower in the SPC group at the end of the 6-month follow-up, primarily because of lower costs for clinic visits. CONCLUSION: The use of the SPC of amlodipine/valsartan was associated with greater absolute BP reductions and fewer antihypertensive drug discontinuations because of side effects and noncompliance compared with the use of the individual drugs. Although the acquisition cost of the SPC was greater than that of the individual drugs, SPC combination therapy resulted in fewer clinic visits, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms. As a result, the total cost of SPC therapy was significantly less than that associated with the use of the individual drug components.

An economic evaluation of valsartan for post-MI patients in the UK who are not suitable for treatment with ACE inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: The overall objective of this study was to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treatment with valsartan for post-myocardial infarction (post-MI) patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both, who are not suitable for treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, compared to placebo. METHODS: A Markov model, using data drawn from the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) trial and other trials, was developed to predict the future health pathways, resource use, and costs for patients who have recently experienced an MI. Patients received either valsartan (mean dose 247 mg) or placebo. Cost data were drawn from national databases and published literature, although health outcome utility weights were derived from existing studies. Patient outcomes were modeled for 10 years, and incremental cost-effective ratios were calculated for valsartan compared with placebo. RESULTS: Over a period of 10 years, a cohort of 1000 patients treated with valsartan experienced 147 fewer cardiovascular deaths, 37 fewer nonfatal MIs, and 95 fewer cases of heart failure than a cohort who received placebo. The incremental cost of valsartan, compared with placebo, was 2680 pound per patient, although the incremental effectiveness of valsartan was 0.5021 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient. Therefore, the incremental cost per QALY for treatment with valsartan was 5338 pound. When analysis was undertaken using life-years rather than QALYs, the cost per life-year gained was 4672 pound. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who are not suitable for treatment with ACE inhibitors, valsartan is a viable and cost-effective treatment for their management after an MI.

The cost effectiveness and cost utility of valsartan in chronic heart failure therapy in Italy: a probabilistic markov model.

To evaluate the cost effectiveness and cost utility of the use of valsartan in addition to standard therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The study was conducted by means of a cohort simulation based on a probabilistic Markov model and projecting the 23-month follow-up results of the Val-HeFT (Valsartan Heart Failure Trial) study over a 10-year time horizon. The model included four states (New York Heart Association [NYHA] classes II, III, IV, and death), and had a cycle duration of 1 month. Probabilistic simulations were performed using the WinBUGS software for Bayesian analysis. The distribution of patient parameters (sex, age, use of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, and ACE inhibitors) in the simulated population were derived from the Italian heart failure patient population. Individual mortality data were derived from general mortality data by multiplying by a NYHA state-specific relative risk, while the probability of changing NYHA class was taken from the Val-HeFT data. Costs (2007 values) were calculated from the perspective of the Italian Health Service (IHS) and included costs for drugs and heart failure hospitalizations. Quality-of-life (QOL) weights were obtained by using published health-related QOL data for heart failure patients. A 3.5% annual discount rate was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on each parameter using original-source 95% confidence interval (CI) values, or a +/-10% range when 95% CI values were unavailable. For the 10-year time horizon, patients were estimated to live for an average of 2.3 years or 1.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with slight increases in the valsartan group. In this group, hospitalizations for worsening heart failure were predicted to be significantly reduced and overall treatment costs per patient to decrease by about and U20AC;550. In subgroup analyses, valsartan lost dominance in patients in NYHA II, and in those receiving beta-adrenoceptor antagonists or ACE inhibitors; the mean incremental cost-utility ratio for these groups was 21 240, 129 200, and 36 500 and U20AC;/QALY, respectively. Valsartan in addition to standard therapy is predicted to dominate standard therapy alone in Italian patients with mild to severe heart failure and low LVEF. There are relevant differences among various patient subgroups, and valsartan is expected to be good value for money particularly in the treatment of the most severe and less intensively treated (no ACE inhibitors, no beta-adrenoceptor antagonist) heart failure patients.

Valacyclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive valganciclovir therapy to prevent cytomegalovirus disease after renal transplantation.

Both preemptive therapy and universal prophylaxis are used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after transplantation. Randomized trials comparing both strategies are sparse. Renal transplant recipients at risk for CMV (D+/R-, D+/R+, D-/R+) were randomized to 3-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir (2 g q.i.d., n = 34) or preemptive therapy with valganciclovir (900 mg b.i.d. for a minimum of 14 days, n = 36) for significant CMV DNAemia (>/=2000 copies/mL by quantitative PCR in whole blood) assessed weekly for 16 weeks and at 5, 6, 9 and 12 months. The 12-month incidence of CMV DNAemia was higher in the preemptive group (92% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) while the incidence of CMV disease was not different (6% vs. 9%, p = 0.567). The onset of CMV DNAemia was delayed in the valacyclovir group (37 +/- 22 vs. 187 +/- 110 days, p < 0.001). Significantly higher rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection during 12 months was observed in the preemptive group (36% vs. 15%, p = 0.034). The average CMV-associated costs per patient were $5525 and $2629 in preemptive therapy and valacyclovir, respectively (p < 0.001). However, assuming the cost of $60 per PCR test, there was no difference in overall costs. In conclusion, preemptive valganciclovir therapy and valacyclovir prophylaxis are equally effective in the prevention of CMV disease after renal transplantation.

[Economics of nephroprotection in arterial hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus].

Based on results of large-scale controlled trials of irbesartan (I), valsartan (V) and amlodipine (A) (PRIME and MARVAL) we carried out the Markov s modeling of their pharmacoeconomic parameters in arterial hypertension (AH) combined with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM 2) and microalbuminuria (MAU) projected for 8-years perspective. Cost and efficacy was evaluated taking into account years of life gained and outcomes of concomitant diseases and complications. Indexes of cost/efficacy (C/E) were calculated for each drug. Among investigated drugs I appeared to be the most economic at the account of retardation of development of terminal nephropathy and cardiovascular diseases. The use of I compared with V could save 565300 rub/100 patients/year. C/E of I was 26.5 and 37.4% lower that those of V and A, respectively. Costs of year of life saved was 12716, 16432, and 18325 for I, V, and A, respectively. Comparative pharmacoeconomic modeling of 8-year economic perspectives of I, V and A demonstrated financial benefits of I.

Controlled release nifedipine and valsartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension: the adalat CR and valsartan cost-effectiveness combination (ADVANCE-combi) study.

This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of two calcium channel blocker-based combination therapies with an angiotensin receptor blocker in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. A 16-week, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomized clinical trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy of controlled release nifedipine (nifedipine CR) plus valsartan vs. that of amlodipine plus valsartan. The primary endpoint was the target blood pressure achievement rate. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to nifedipine CR-based or amlodipine-based treatment groups. Patients were examined every 4 weeks to determine whether the blood pressure had reached the target level. When the target level was not achieved, the drug regimen was changed; when the target blood pressure was achieved, the same study medication was continued. A total of 505 patients were enrolled in the study (nifedipine CR group: 245 cases; amlodipine group: 260 cases). After 16 weeks of treatment, blood pressure was significantly reduced in both groups, but to a larger extent in the nifedipine CR group than in the amlodipine group (p < 0.01). The target blood pressure achievement rate was also significantly higher in the nifedipine CR group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of drug-related adverse events between the groups. These results indicate that the nifedipine CR-based combination therapy was superior to the amlodipine-based therapy for decreasing blood pressure and achieving the target blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension.

Prophylactic Efficacy Against Herpes Zoster and Costs Difference Between Acyclovir and Valaciclovir in Hematological Patients.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised hematological patients are at increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ). We examined the efficacy of acyclovir and valaciclovir in preventing HZ. We also created a simulation to reduce prophylactic medicine costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 573 hematological patients who received chemotherapy, and assessed the difference in the costs between the acyclovir (Zovirax®) and valaciclovir (Valtrex®) groups. RESULTS: Forty-four out of the 573 patients (7.7%) developed HZ. Out of them, there were 37 patients (84.1%) who received corticosteroids. Moreover, in total, there were 67 patients receiving acyclovir prophylaxis and 42 patients receiving valaciclovir prophylaxis, out of which one from each group occurred with HZ. The total 5-year cost of acyclovir and valaciclovir was ¥2,869,917 and ¥4,809,952, respectively. Therefore, by changing from valaciclovir to acyclovir, medical costs could be reduced by 28.3%. Additionally, switching to generic inexpensive acyclovir would possibly reduce them to 15.0%. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy, including corticosteroids, is associated with a high incidence of HZ. Additionally, there was no prophylactic difference between acyclovir and valaciclovir. We expect that use of generic acyclovir could reduce prophylaxis costs by 85.0%.

Use of valsartan for the treatment of heart-failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors: a budget impact analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a widespread and costly malady. It represents the leading single diagnosis for hospitalized patients. For many heart failure patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are either not tolerated or contraindicated, but angiotensin receptor blockers such as valsartan may be a therapeutic option for them. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to prepare a budget impact analysis to assist health plans in evaluating the financial impact of adding valsartan therapy to usual care for heart failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors. METHODS: A budget impact analysis was developed for a hypothetical US health plan. Model inputs included demographic data, estimates of the prevalence of heart failure and proportion of heart-failure patients not on ACE inhibitors, prevalence of heart failure-related hospitalization, cost data, and resultant health care utilization from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). Costs and cost savings were reported as year-2001 US dollars. RESULTS: An estimated 1207 of hypothetical 250,000 enrollees were projected to have heart-failure diagnoses, with 603 (50.0%) not receiving ACE inhibitors, and 160 (26.5%) of such patients being hospitalized each year. For valsartan-treated patients, savings due to reduced hospitalizations and shorter length of hospital stay were 1,083,938 US dollars and 221,364 US dollars, respectively. Subtracting the cost of valsartan treatment (629,472 US dollars) from savings yielded projected net savings of 675,830 US dollars per year. Varying patient, treatment, and payer-mix characteristics resulted in projected net savings of $409,598 to 1,350,617 US dollars per year. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of valsartan therapy to usual care in this model analysis resulted in net cost savings among hypothetical heart-failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors. Substantial cost savings were realized, regardless of variation in model parameters.

A comparative randomised study of valacyclovir vs. oral ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients.

An open, prospective, randomised study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of valacyclovir vs. oral ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients. Eighty-three renal transplant recipients were assigned randomly to receive valacyclovir (n=43) or oral ganciclovir (n=40) for the first 3 months after transplantation. Both groups were similar in terms of demographics, primary renal disease, graft source, HLA matching, immunosuppressive therapy and donor-recipient CMV antibody status. CMV infection was diagnosed by detection of virus DNA in plasma with the Amplicor CMV Test. CMV disease was observed in only one patient belonging to the ganciclovir group, who developed enterocolitis 6 months post-transplantation. No difference was observed between the two treatment groups with respect to detection of CMV DNA, virus infections other than CMV, acute rejection episodes, and serum creatinine levels at 3 and 6 months following transplantation. An increased number of bacterial infections was noted in the ganciclovir group (p 0.003). No adverse reactions with either treatment were reported. The estimated cost of valacyclovir treatment was 20% higher than that of ganciclovir treatment. Overall, both valacyclovir and oral ganciclovir were found to be effective and safe for CMV prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients. Decisions regarding prophylactic regimens should include additional criteria, such as cost or possible development of resistance.

The cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with valaciclovir in the management of cytomegalovirus after renal transplantation.

Prophylaxis-based antiviral treatment and intensive monitoring followed by pre-emptive antiviral treatment are both commonly used management strategies to reduce risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection following renal transplantation. This study employed a decision-model approach using published efficacy data and information from a recent survey of French clinical practice to consider the relative costs and outcomes associated with CMV prevention strategies for high-risk patient groups. The cost per case of treating tissue invasive and symptomatic CMV disease was estimated at euro 15,431 and euro 10,852, respectively. In the highest infection-risk patient group (positive donor with no previous CMV history) prophylactic oral valaciclovir was shown to avoid the greatest number of CMV disease cases (35 cases per 100 transplanted patients) and reduced the overall CMV-related costs per transplanted patient by around 14% over a'wait-and-treat' baseline strategy. In contrast, intensive monitoring and preemptive treatment resulted in a much higher cost per transplanted patient. This analysis suggests that prophylactic treatment remains the most cost-effective approach to the management of CMV in renal-transplanted patients. Further comparative studies between prophylactic and pre-emptive treatment would be a valuable addition to the current evidence based on CMV prevention.

Valaciclovir versus aciclovir for the treatment of primary genital herpes simplex: a cost analysis.

The current guidelines for the treatment of primary herpes simplex in the Genito-urinary department in Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, recommend valaciclovir as a first-line medication. This is a prodrug of aciclovir, which has been used for many years as a treatment for primary herpes simplex virus. The basis of the recommendation largely relates to valaciclovir being more bioavailable than aciclovir. However, there is no evidence to suggest this has an effect on overall outcome with regard to symptom control and viral shedding. The purpose of the service evaluation was to discover if significant cost savings could be made by changing the prescribing policy to make aciclovir the drug of choice for primary herpes simplex virus. Based on 160 patients receiving valaciclovir (500 mg BD) during April 2013 and March 2014, if they had been treated with aciclovir (400 mg TDS) instead, a saving of £828.80 (66% reduction) could have been made.

Multinational economic evaluation of valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) compared valsartan versus placebo in 5010 patients taking prescribed background therapy for New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure. Valsartan reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization and improved clinical signs and symptoms of heart failure. We sought to compare resource use, costs, and health outcomes among patients taking prescribed therapy for heart failure and randomly assigned to receive valsartan or placebo. METHODS: Measures of resource use were based on data collected during the trial. Unit cost estimates were collected from individual countries and converted to 1999 US dollars. Total costs were estimated for hospitalizations, inpatient and outpatient physician services, ambulance transportation, deaths outside the hospital, and outpatient cardiovascular medications. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 23 months. Mean costs for heart failure hospitalizations were 423 dollars lower among patients receiving valsartan (95% CI, -706 to -146). Mean total costs were 9008 dollars for patients receiving valsartan and 8464 dollars for patients receiving placebo, a net incremental cost of 545 dollars (95% CI, -149 to 1148), including the cost of valsartan. There was an overall reduction in total costs of 929 dollars (95% CI, -3243 to 1533) among patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor at baseline but a slight increase in costs of 334 dollars (95% CI, -497 to 1199) among those receiving an ACE inhibitor without a beta-blocker and a 1246 dollars increase (95% CI, 54 to 2230) in patients receiving both an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan provided clinical benefits at a mean incremental cost of 285 dollars per year during the trial. In patients not taking ACE inhibitors, valsartan was economically attractive, increasing survival while reducing or marginally increasing overall costs.

Valaciclovir prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in renal transplantation: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant patients and is associated with large additional healthcare expenditures. An economic evaluation of valaciclovir CMV prophylaxis in a renal transplant population is reported. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected alongside a multicenter multinational randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of valaciclovir CMV prophylaxis in renal transplantation. Patients were stratified into donor seropositive/recipient sero-negative (D+R-) and recipient seropositive (R+) groups. Patients were followed-up 6 months posttransplant. A cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the French health care system was performed using the number of cases of CMV disease avoided at 6 months as the clinical endpoint. RESULTS: Resource use was significantly increased among patients who developed CMV disease compared to those who did not develop disease. In the high risk D+R- group, valaciclovir prophylaxis was associated with an average of 5.5 fewer inpatient hospital days (P < OR =0.05) and with significantly lower use of other healthcare resources. In the R+ group, valaciclovir prophylaxis prevented cases of CMV disease at a marginally greater mean cost per patient compared with placebo. For D+R- patients valaciclovir prophylaxis was therefore an economically superior strategy, resulting in fewer cases of CMV disease and lower total mean healthcare expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Valaciclovir CMV prophylaxis in renal transplantation is a more cost-effective therapy compared with placebo, in the high-risk D+R- patient population. For the R+ group, the incremental cost per case of CMV disease was modest.

Valacyclovir prophylaxis for the prevention of Herpes simplex virus reactivation in recipients of progenitor cells transplantation.

HSV can cause oral lesions that exacerbate chemotherapy-related mucositis. Intravenous acyclovir is effective in preventing HSV reactivations, but expensive. Valacyclovir has good bioavailability and has not been studied for prophylaxis of HSV among PCT patients. We compared the efficacy and costs of valacyclovir in preventing HSV reactivation among HSV seropositive autologous progenitor cell transplantation (APCT) patients with historical controls in whom intravenous acyclovir or no HSV prophylaxis were used. Valacyclovir group: From October 1997 to April 1999 108 adult patients received valacyclovir 500 mg twice daily from day -3 of APCT until neutropenia recovery or day +30. Valacyclovir was switched to intravenous acyclovir in cases of oral intolerance (17 patients) or suspected HSV reactivation (five patients). Intravenous acyclovir group: From January 1996 to October 1997 43 patients received 5 mg/kg twice-daily intravenous acyclovir from day -3 until recovery from neutropenia. No prophylaxis group: 38 patients from January 1996 to October 1997 did not receive HSV prophylaxis. HSV reactivations were seen in 2.7%, 2% and 45% of patients in the valacyclovir, intravenous acyclovir, and no prophylaxis groups, respectively. Valacyclovir was well tolerated and was the least expensive strategy. Oral valacyclovir was as effective as intravenous acyclovir for the prophylaxis of HSV reactivation in APCT patients.