Cost-effectiveness of once-daily vs twice-daily tacrolimus among Hispanic and Black kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Tacrolimus is a first-line immunosuppressive therapy to prevent rejection and graft failure in kidney transplant recipients. Once-daily extended-release tacrolimus tablets (LCPT) have been shown to be efficacious, particularly for Hispanic and Black patient subpopulations who are rapid metabolizers, but is more costly than twice-daily immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LCPT during the first year of treatment vs IR-Tac in kidney transplant recipients who are Hispanic or Black. METHODS: A decision analytic model from a US payer perspective was developed using (1) subgroup outcomes data pooled from two phase 3 clinical trials that compared LCPT and IR-Tac, and (2) direct costs from real-world data sources (ie, costs of LCPT and IR-Tac treatments, biopsy-proven acute rejection, treatment-related serious adverse events [SAEs], graft failure, and consequent dialysis). The primary outcome was cost per successfully treated patient, defined as having a functioning graft after 1 year and without treatment-related SAEs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses established distributions for cost and outcomes estimates, and a series of one-way sensitivity analyses identified parameters that had the most effect on results. RESULTS: Total overall cost for the Hispanic group was $14,765 for LCPT and $12,416 for IR-Tac, and total cost in the Black group was $16,626 for LCPT and $9,871 for IR-Tac. Total overall effectiveness of LCPT and IR-Tac was 88.32% and 84.75% in the Hispanic group and 93.24% and 85.78% in the Black group, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for using LCPT over IR-Tac during the first year of treatment in the Hispanic group was $65,643 per additional successfully treated patient. The ICER for the Black group was $90,458. The single parameter having the most impact on results in both groups was the probability of a treatment-related SAE in IR-Tac, which accounted for 49% of variation in results in the Hispanic group and 46% in the Black group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall results for both groups show that LCPT is incrementally more costly and more effective compared with IR-Tac, indicating a trade-off scenario. LCPT is a cost-effective strategy if a decision makers' willingness to pay for 1 additional successfully treated patient exceeds the ICER and must be weighed against the costs of graft loss, continuing dialysis, and potential retransplant. This study provides a foundation for further research to update and expand inputs as more data become available to improve real-world relevance and decision making. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which provided clinical trial file data and nonbinding feedback on the model structure, data interpretation, clinical expertise, manuscript review, and areas of publication interest (ie, managed care). Hurwitz, Grizzle, Villa Zapata, and Malone received grant funding from Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., through University of Arizona to conduct research and analysis for this study. Tyler is employed by Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Some of the data reported and used in this research were available from the US Renal Data System, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utility Project. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the US government.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES: To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS: Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled. FUTURE WORK: High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome. CONCLUSION: Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in children and adolescents: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation followed by induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) and rabbit antihuman thymocyte immunoglobulin (Thymoglobuline,(®) Sanofi) as induction therapy and immediate-release tacrolimus [Adoport(®) (Sandoz); Capexion(®) (Mylan); Modigraf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Perixis(®) (Accord Healthcare); Prograf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Tacni(®) (Teva); Vivadex(®) (Dexcel Pharma)], prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf,(®) Astellas Pharma); belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix,(®) Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) [Arzip(®) (Zentiva), CellCept(®) (Roche Products), Myfenax(®) (Teva), generic MMF is manufactured by Accord Healthcare, Actavis, Arrow Pharmaceuticals, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Mylan, Sandoz and Wockhardt], mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus (Rapamune,(®) Pfizer) and everolimus (Certican,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents undergoing renal transplantation. DATA SOURCES: Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted to 7 January 2015 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science [via Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted to 15 January 2015 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Databases (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and EconLit (via EBSCOhost). REVIEW METHODS: Titles and abstracts were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria, as were full texts of identified studies. Included studies were extracted and quality appraised. Data were meta-analysed when appropriate. A new discrete time state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed; graft function, and incidences of acute rejection and new-onset diabetes mellitus were used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four non-RCTs were included. The RCTs only evaluated BAS and tacrolimus (TAC). No statistically significant differences in key outcomes were found between BAS and placebo/no induction. Statistically significantly higher graft function (p < 0.01) and less biopsy-proven acute rejection (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.57) was found between TAC and ciclosporin (CSA). Only one cost-effectiveness study was identified, which informed NICE guidance TA99. BAS [with TAC and azathioprine (AZA)] was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) versus no induction (BAS was dominant). BAS (with CSA and MMF) was not predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus no induction (BAS was dominated). TAC (with AZA) was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus CSA (TAC was dominant). A model based on adult evidence suggests that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY, BAS and TAC are cost-effective in all considered combinations; MMF was also cost-effective with CSA but not TAC. LIMITATIONS: The RCT evidence is very limited; analyses comparing all interventions need to rely on adult evidence. CONCLUSIONS: TAC is likely to be cost-effective (vs. CSA, in combination with AZA) at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Analysis based on one RCT found BAS to be dominant, but analysis based on another RCT found BAS to be dominated. BAS plus TAC and AZA was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY when all regimens were compared using extrapolated adult evidence. High-quality primary effectiveness research is needed. The UK Renal Registry could form the basis for a prospective primary study. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013544. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Generics: are all immunosuppression agents created equally?

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act initiated innumerable cost-containment measures, including promoting generic conversion from brand medications and directing the Food and Drug Administration to decrease requirements for generic approvals. Despite this mandate, few data existed on generic conversion of immunosuppressant medications with narrow therapeutic troughs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our initial experience with generic tacrolimus (n = 39) was performed using a control cohort from our renal transplant database. A rejection and cost analysis was performed using a consecutive 2-year prior cohort (n = 159) as a control to determine the effect of generic conversion on tacrolimus a narrow therapeutic index immunosuppressant medication. RESULTS: During the first year after transplantation, the generic group had a greater drug variability (20% ± change in trough levels) that required more dosage adjustments (5.42 vs 3.59 drug dosage changes; P = .038) to obtain a stable dose, required increased number of intravenous magnesium infusions (4.95 vs 1.68 infusions; P = .001), and incurred a greater incidence of rejection (23.1% vs 10.2%; P = .024). A yearly institutional cost was evaluated against a negotiated $18,000/yearly central pharmacy cost savings compared with a $652,862 institutional cost to treat unanticipated rejections. CONCLUSION: Programmatic conversion from brand to generic tacrolimus resulted in increased drug variability, a greater incidence of magnesium wasting, and more episodes of rejection, leading to increases in institutional costs of care. This government-driven attempt at cost containment may be applicable to noncritical medications such as antibiotics and antihypertensives, but this policy should be reconsidered for narrow therapeutic index medications, such as tacrolimus and other immunosuppressant medications.

Systematic review on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of topical calcineurin inhibitors in atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) are widely used as an alternative to topical corticosteroids (TCSs) in treating of atopic dermatitis, but their risk versus benefit compared with TCSs remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of TCI compared with TCS and emollients. METHODS: Published meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and individual studies from January 2005 to January 2015 on the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of TCI against emollients and TCS were included. RESULTS: Tacrolimus is comparable to TCS in efficacy, safety profile, and cost-effectiveness. Pimecrolimus has a similar safety profile compared with TCS, emollients, and tacrolimus. It is superior to emollients but inferior to TCS and tacrolimus in efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The association of tacrolimus with malignancy remains uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus is an efficacious and cost-effective alternative to TCS, but its benefits need to be weighed against its still uncertain risk for malignancy. Pimecrolimus is appropriate for mild atopic dermatitis when TCS or tacrolimus is unsuitable.

Cyclosporine versus tacrolimus: cost-effectiveness analysis for renal transplantation in Brazil / Análise de custo-efetividade: ciclosporina versus tacrolimo para transplante renal no Brasil

OBJECTIVE To analyze the cost-effectiveness of treatment regimens with cyclosporine or tacrolimus, five years after renal transplantation. METHODS This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on historical cohort data obtained between 2000 and 2004 and involved 2,022 patients treated with cyclosporine or tacrolimus, matched 1:1 for gender, age, and type and year of transplantation. Graft survival and the direct costs of medical care obtained from the National Health System (SUS) databases were used as outcome results. RESULTS Most of the patients were women, with a mean age of 36.6 years. The most frequent diagnosis of chronic renal failure was glomerulonephritis/nephritis (27.7%). In five years, the tacrolimus group had an average life expectancy gain of 3.96 years at an annual cost of R$78,360.57 compared with the cyclosporine group with a gain of 4.05 years and an annual cost of R$61,350.44. CONCLUSIONS After matching, the study indicated better survival of patients treated with regimens using tacrolimus. However, regimens containing cyclosporine were more cost-effective. .

OBJETIVO Analisar custo-efetividade de regimes terapêuticos com ciclosporina ou tacrolimo cinco anos após transplante renal. MÉTODOS Análise de custo-efetividade com base em dados de coorte histórica 2000-2004, com 2.022 pacientes tratados com ciclosporina ou tacrolimo e pareados 1:1 segundo sexo, idade, tipo e ano de transplante. A sobrevida do enxerto e os custos diretos de cuidados médicos a partir das bases de dados do Sistema Único de Saúde foram utilizados como medida de resultado. RESULTADOS A maioria dos pacientes era do sexo feminino e média de idade de 36,6 anos. O diagnóstico mais frequente de insuficiência renal crônica foi a glomerulonefrite/nefrite (27,7%). Em cinco anos, o grupo tacrolimo obteve uma expectativa de vida média de 3,96 anos de vida ganhos ao custo anual de R$78.360,57 ante 4,05 anos de vida ganhos e de R$61.350,44 para ciclosporina. CONCLUSÕES Após o pareamento, o estudo não mostrou melhor sobrevida dos pacientes com regimes que usam tacrolimo. Além disso, regimes contendo ciclosporina foram mais custo-efetivos. .

Co-administration of Wuzhi capsules and tacrolimus in patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy: clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomics.

PURPOSE: Tacrolimus is an effective (but relatively expensive) immunosuppressant that is used widely in patients with membranous nephropathy. To reduce the tacrolimus dose while maintaining an equivalent therapeutic effect, we studied the clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomic impact of co-administration of Wuzhi capsules (WZC that protects against damage to liver cells) and tacrolimus. METHODS: Sixty patients with membranous nephropathy were divided randomly into two groups: experimental (tacrolimus + WZC + corticosteroids) and control (tacrolimus + corticosteroids). Each group received treatments continuously for >6 months. Liver function; renal function; and whole-blood concentrations of tacrolimus, sugars, lipids, as well as 24-h urinary protein levels were used in the clinical evaluation. The cost of drugs was calculated, and the pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to compare indices between the two groups. RESULTS: Doses and costs of tacrolimus differed significantly between experimental and control groups (p < 0.01 or p < 0.05). Costs in the experimental group were 13,702.62 ± 1,458.6 CNY (2,194.10 ± 233.56 USD) and those in the control group were 17,796.87 ± 2,469.27 CNY (2,849.69 ± 395.39 USD), with clinical efficacy of 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios were 146.86 ± 15.63 and 197.73 ± 27.44, respectively. Compared with the experimental group, the control group showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1,240.68 ± 306.25 CNY (198.66 ± 49.04 USD), whereas remission between the two groups was similar. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of WZCs and tacrolimus can reduce the dose of tacrolimus and decrease the costs incurred by patients within the same therapeutic window to that seen for treatment with tacrolimus alone.

A UK analysis of the cost of switching renal transplant patients from an immediate-release to a prolonged-release formulation of tacrolimus based on differences in trough concentration variability.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Randomized controlled trials have shown that a once-daily prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus formulation (PR tacrolimus; Advagraf * ), is non-inferior to a twice-daily immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus formulation (IR tacrolimus; Prograf † ) in terms of biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft failure and mortality in renal transplant recipients. However, relative to IR tacrolimus, PR tacrolimus exhibits reduced tacrolimus trough concentration variability, which has been associated with reduced graft failure. Based on these data, the present study evaluated the cost of switching UK renal transplant patients from IR tacrolimus to PR tacrolimus. METHODS: UK-specific data on acute rejection, graft failure, and mortality were used to construct a budget impact model to assess the costs of switching from IR tacrolimus to PR tacrolimus on a 1:1 mg:mg basis. The model assumed that 3.1% of patients on PR tacrolimus had high tacrolimus trough concentration variability compared with 17.4% on IR tacrolimus, based on a study comparing PR tacrolimus and IR tacrolimus pharmacokinetics. A relative graft failure risk of 2.38 was applied to high variability patients based on data from a tacrolimus variability study in which 10/148 patients with low variability experienced graft failure, compared with 24/149 in the high variability group. Cost data were taken from the British National Formulary and 2012-2013 NHS tariff information. RESULTS: The mean per-patient cost (including tacrolimus, concomitant immunosuppressive medications, dialysis after graft failure, and treatment for acute rejection) was GBP 26,941 (standard deviation [SD] = GBP 2765) with PR tacrolimus vs GBP 30,356 (SD = GBP 3085) for IR tacrolimus over a 5-year period, corresponding to a saving of GBP 3415 (SD = GBP 516) per patient or GBP 341,500 in a hypothetical 100-patient transplant center. Cost savings were driven primarily by lower dialysis costs resulting from the lower proportion of PR tacrolimus patients with high tacrolimus trough concentration variability (leading to lower graft failure risk). LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of the study was the use of heterogeneous data sources to capture the effect of within-patient variability on graft failure. The most important difference between the studies was the definition of the threshold between low and high within-patient variability. This was explored in sensitivity analyses in which the inter-arm difference in the inter-arm proportions of patients with high and low variability was abolished. CONCLUSIONS: Converting UK renal transplant recipients from IR tacrolimus to PR tacrolimus was associated with lower pharmacy and dialysis costs.

Evaluation of clinical and safety outcomes associated with conversion from brand-name to generic tacrolimus in transplant recipients enrolled in an integrated health care system.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and safety outcomes among transplant recipients whose tacrolimus was converted from the brand-name formulation to a generic formulation. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. DATA SOURCE: Clinical databases and electronic records from a large, integrated health care system in California. PATIENTS: A total of 234 clinically stable, adult transplant recipients (renal, liver, and heart) whose tacrolimus was converted from the brand-name formulation to a generic formulation between October 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, according to a physician-approved protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each patient, pre- and postconversion tacrolimus trough concentrations and serum creatinine concentrations were analyzed. Data were also collected on the percentage of patients who required dosage titration, drug cost savings, and rates of reversion to brand-name tacrolimus, biopsy-proved acute allograft rejections, and mortality. No significant differences were noted in mean ± SD pre- and postconversion tacrolimus trough levels (6.74 ± 1.61 vs 6.96 ± 2.31 ng/ml, p=0.137) or serum creatinine concentrations (1.33 ± 0.48 vs 1.36 ± 0.82 mg/dl, p=0.302). The mean ± SD percent change in tacrolimus trough concentration was 5.63 ± 32.95%. Thirty-six patients (15.4%) required dosage titration. Six patients (2.6%) reverted back to brand-name tacrolimus. No deaths or acute rejections occurred. Use of the generic product saved each patient an average of $45/month in drug acquisition cost and $26/prescription copayment. CONCLUSION: Clinical experience as well as research data show that use of generic tacrolimus results in trough concentrations that are comparable to the brand-name drug. Given the lack of adverse events reported and the cost savings recognized, conversion from brand-name tacrolimus to generic tacrolimus should be encouraged. Since dosage titration may be required, close therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended.

Ciclosporina versus tacrolimus no transplante renal no Brasil: uma comparação de custos / Cyclosporine versus tacrolimus in kidney transplants in Brazil: a cost comparison

No Brasil, o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) é responsável maioria dos transplantes renais. Para a manutenção dessas intervenções, os protocolos recomendam uso da ciclosporina ou tacrolimus, associado com corticosteróides e azatioprina ou micofenolato. Na perspectiva do SUS, realizou-se análise econômica sobre recursos ambulatoriais, hospitalares e medicamentos utilizados por paciente e grupo terapêutico. Foi construída coorte de 2000 a 2004, com 5.174 pacientes em transplantes renais e em uso de ciclosporina ou tacrolimus, identificados por relacionamento probabilístico em registros do SUS. A coorte continha 4.015 pacientes em uso de ciclosporina e 1.159 com tacrolimus. A maioria era do sexo masculino, idade < 38 anos, cujos diagnósticos primários mais freqüentes eram nefrites, doenças cardiovasculares e causas indeterminadas. Após 48 meses, observou-se gasto superior para transplantes renais em hospitais do Nordeste, doador cadáver, naqueles em diálises > 24 meses antes do transplantes renais e no grupo do tacrolimus. Constatou-se maior gasto total com recursos hospitalares, ambulatoriais e medicamentos para os transplantes renais em pacientes com esquemas com tacrolimus, quando comparados com o grupo da ciclosporina.

In Brazil, the Unified National Health System (SUS) is responsible for the majority of kidney transplants. To maintain these interventions, the guidelines recommend the use of cyclosporine or tacrolimus, associated with corticosteroids and azathioprine or mycophenolate. Taking the perspective of the National Health System, an economic analysis was performed on the outpatient and hospital resources and medicines used by patient and therapeutic group. A cohort was constructed from 2000 to 2004, with 5,174 kidney transplant patients in use of cyclosporine or tacrolimus, identified by probabilistic record linkage from the National Health System. The cohort included 4,015 patients in use of cyclosporine and 1,159 using tacrolimus. The majority were males, age < 38 years, with nephritis, cardiovascular diseases, and indeterminate causes as the most frequent primary diagnoses. After 48 months of follow-up, the expenditures were higher for kidney transplants in hospitals in the Northeast, cadaver donors, patients in dialysis > 24 months before the transplant, and in the tacrolimus group. Total hospital and outpatient costs and expenditure on medication were higher in patients on tacrolimus as compared to the cyclosporine group.

[Atopic dermatitis and tacrolimus in adults]. / Dermatitis atópica y tacrolimus en adultos.

Topical treatment with tacrolimus is more effective than the placebo and the low potency corticosteroids in the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in both adults and children while it has a similar potency as some topical corticosteroids of medium potency. Since it was put on the market, more evidence has been accumulating to make our previous statements and it has been demonstrated to have greater effectivity than topical pimecrolimus and oral cyclosporine. It is a safe drug and its side effects are of little importance. Specifically no side effects have been demonstrated due to its systemic absorption nor has there been any increase in skin infections. The most frequent side effect is burning sensation or increased pruritus in the area where the product is applied. It is more frequent if the lesions treated are very acute and is generally transitory, not causing the treatment to be discontinued. Furthermore, with the current information, it cannot be associated to an increase of any type of neoplasms.

Tacrolimus for Crohn's disease.

(1) Tacrolimus (FK-506) is an immunosuppressant that is being investigated for use in patients with Crohn's disease, mainly in those with refractory illness and fistulizing patterns of the disease. (2) Evidence from a small, randomized controlled trial indicates that, compared with placebo, tacrolimus is associated with higher rates of improvement and similar rates of remission in those with fistulizing patterns of disease. (3) Nephrotoxicity, which has been reported with the use of tacrolimus in clinical trials, seems to improve with dose reduction, but may be associated with irreversible histologic changes. (4) More studies are needed to determine the optimal dose and duration of therapy, and whether the drug is beneficial to patients with non-fistulizing patterns of Crohn's disease.

A randomized, prospective, pharmacoeconomic trial of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in combination with thymoglobulin in renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: To date, the clinical trials of tacrolimus (TAC) versus cyclosporine modified (CsA), have not defined which agent is more cost-effective for immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients especially in a quadruple immunosuppressive regimen. METHODS: The objective of this randomized, prospective study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of TAC versus CsA, in a regimen that consisted of Thymoglobulin induction, an antimetabolite, and prednisone. Between December 2000 and October 2002, 200 patients were enrolled and randomized in a 2:1 fashion (TAC n=134, CsA n=66). RESULTS: At 1 year, acute rejection (4% TAC vs. 6% CsA), patient survival (TAC 99% vs. CsA 100%), and graft survival (95% TAC versus 100% CsA, P=0.059) were similar. Serum creatinine levels were lower in the TAC group compared with the CsA group (1.3+/-0.3 vs. 1.6+/-0.7 mg/dL, P=0.03). The incidence of CMV infection was similar between the groups and two patients, both in the TAC arm, developed malignancy. Anti-hypertensive requirement (32% TAC vs. 32% CsA) and the incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus (4% TAC vs. 2% CsA) were similar. Pretransplant, fewer TAC patients received dyslipidemia treatment (40% TAC vs. 67% CsA, P=0.0005), while more CsA patients were able to discontinue these medications posttransplant (absolute change 25% TAC vs. 47% CsA). Total 12-month medication costs were similar (17,723 +/- 11,647 dollars TAC vs. 16,515 +/- 10,189 dollars CsA). CONCLUSIONS: When combined with Thymoglobulin induction, an antimetabolite, and corticosteroids, TAC and CsA are comparable in safety, efficacy, and cost in renal transplantation.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation: a systematic review and modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the newer immunosuppressive drugs for renal transplantation: basiliximab, daclizumab, tacrolimus, mycophenolate (mofetil and sodium) and sirolimus. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Industry submissions. Current Clinical Trials register. Cochrane Collaboration Renal Disease Group. REVIEW METHODS: The review followed the InterTASC standards. Each of the five company submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) contained cost-effectiveness models, which were evaluated by using a critique covering (1) model checking, (2) a detailed model description and (3) model rerunning. RESULTS: For induction therapy, three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found that daclizumab significantly reduced the incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection and patient survival at 6 months/1 year compared with placebo, but not compared with the monoclonal antibody OKT3. There was no significant gain in patient survival or graft loss at 3 years. The incidence of side-effects with daclizumab reduced compared to OKT3. Eight RCTs found that basiliximab significantly improved 6-month/1-year biopsy-confirmed acute rejection compared to placebo, but not compared to either ATG or OKT3. There was no significant gain in either 1-year patient survival or graft loss. The incidence of side-effects with basiliximab was not significantly different compared to OKT3/ATG. For initial/maintenance therapy, 13 RCTs found that tacrolimus reduced the 6-month/1-year incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection compared to ciclosporin. There was no significant improvement in either 1-year or long-term (up to 5 years) graft loss or patient survival. The acute rejection benefit of tacrolimus over ciclosporin appeared to be equivalent for Sandimmun and Neoral. There were important differences in the side-effect profile of tacrolimus and ciclosporin. Seven RCTs found that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) reduced the incidence of acute rejection. There was no significant difference in patient survival or graft loss at 1-year or 3-year follow-up. There appeared to be differences in the side-effect profiles of MMF and azathioprine (AZA). No RCTs comparing MMF with AZA were identified. One RCT compared mycophenolate sodium (MPS) to MMF and reported no difference between the two drugs in 1-year acute rejection rate, graft survival, patient survival or side-effect profile. Two RCTs suggest that addition of sirolimus to a ciclosporin-based initial/maintenance therapy reduces 1-year acute rejections in comparison to a ciclosporin (Neoral) dual therapy alone and substituting azathioprine with sirolimus in initial/maintenance therapy reduces the incidence of acute rejection. Graft and patient survival were not significantly different with either sirolimus regimen. Adding sirolimus increases the incidence of side-effects. The side-effect profiles of azathioprine and sirolimus appear to be different. For the treatment of acute rejection, three RCTs suggested that both tacrolimus and MMF reduce the incidence of subsequent acute rejection and the need for additional drug therapy. Only one RCT and one subgroup analysis in children (<18 years) were identified comparing ciclosporin to tacrolimus and sirolimus, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The newer immunosuppressant drugs (basiliximab, daclizumab, tacrolimus and MMF) consistently reduced the incidence of short-term (1-year) acute rejection compared with conventional immunosuppressive therapy. The independent use of basiliximab, daclizumab, tacrolimus and MMF was associated with a similar absolute reduction in 1-year acute rejection rate (approximately 15%). However, the effects of these drugs did not appear to be additive (e.g. benefit of tacrolimus with adjuvant MMF was 5% reduction in acute rejection rate compared with 15% reduction with adjuvant AZA). Thus, the addition of one of these drugs to a baseline immunosuppressant regimen was likely to affect adversely the incremental cost-effectiveness of the addition of another. The trials did not assess how the improvement in short-term outcomes (e.g. acute rejection rate or measures of graft function), together with the side-effect profile associated with each drug, translated into changes in patient-related quality of life. Moreover, given the relatively short duration of trials, the impact of the newer immunosuppressants on long-term graft loss and patient survival remains uncertain. The absence of both long-term outcome and quality of life from trial data makes assessment of the clinical and cost-effectiveness on the newer immunosuppressants contingent on modelling based on extrapolations from short-term trial outcomes. The choice of the most appropriate short-term outcome (e.g. acute rejection rate or measures of graft function) for such modelling remains a matter of clinical and scientific debate. The decision to use acute rejection in the meta-model in this report was based on the findings of a systematic review of the literature of predictors of long-term graft outcome. Only a very small proportion of the RCTs identified in this review assessed patient-focused outcomes such as quality of life. Since immunosuppressive drugs have both clinical benefits and specific side-effects, the balance of these harms and benefits could best be quantified through future trials using quality of life measures. The design of future trials should be considered with a view to the impact of drugs on particular renal transplant groups, particularly higher risk individuals and children. Finally, there is a need for improved reporting of methodological details of future trials, such as the method of randomisation and allocation concealment. A number of issues exist around registry data, for example the use of multiple drug regimens and the need to assess the long-term outcomes. An option is the use of observational registry data including, if possible, prospective data on all consecutive UK renal transplant patients. Data capture for each patient should include immunosuppressant regimens, clinical and patient-related outcomes and patient demographics.

Cost effectiveness of Elidel in the management of patients with atopic dermatitis in Canada.

BACKGROUND: With increasing pressure on health care resources, it is necessary to demonstrate that new treatments are both effective and cost effective. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of pimecrolimus (Elidel) compared to usual therapy in the treatment of both adults and children with atopic eczema in Canada. METHODS: Analysis was performed using a decision model which estimated the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained from both a societal and health care perspective. RESULTS: For children, Elidel leads an incremental cost per QALY of 38,000 dollars from a societal perspective. For adults, the incremental cost per QALY was 35,000 dollars. CONCLUSION: Elidel will lead to an overall increase in costs but with an improvement in clinical outcomes. The cost effectiveness ratios for Elidel were consistently below 50,000 dollars per QALY gained. Given previous funding decisions in Canada, Elidel may be considered a cost-effective use of health care resources.

Sublingual tacrolimus for immunosuppression in lung transplantation: a potentially important therapeutic option in cystic fibrosis.

Lung transplantation has emerged as an option to prolong and increase the quality of life in patients with end-stage pulmonary lung disease. In lung transplant recipients, because of the high potential for acute and chronic allograft rejection, optimal selection, dosage and delivery of immunosuppressive medications is critical. Cystic fibrosis (CF), a multi-organ system disease that often includes pulmonary and gastrointestinal manifestations, represents the leading indication for bilateral lung transplantation. The gastrointestinal manifestations of CF, however, confound post-transplant management by causing significant variation in the rate and extent of absorption of orally administered immunosuppressive medications. Tacrolimus, a new calcineurin inhibitor, is increasingly employed as the primary immunosuppressive agent in lung transplant recipients. Unfortunately, tacrolimus itself exhibits variable bioavailability, particularly in CF transplant recipients. A novel approach to the absorption dilemma is administration of tacrolimus via the sublingual (SL) route. Little published information exists concerning the use of SL immunosuppression in transplant recipients. However, emerging evidence suggests that SL tacrolimus provides is an effective means of drug delivery particularly for CF lung transplant recipients. Preliminary results from a pilot study, demonstrate that SL delivery of tacrolimus achieves therapeutic serum levels, in lung transplant recipients with CF, over the first few postoperative months. In addition, the early postoperative use of SL tacrolimus has been associated with acceptable rates of transplant rejection and normal renal function in a cohort of 22 lung transplant recipients that included CF and non-CF transplant recipients. Potential pharmacokinetic advantages of the SL route of delivery include good permeability, rapid absorption, acceptable bioavailability and easy accessibility. From an economic standpoint, considerable cost savings could be achieved by using the SL rather than the intravenous route of drug delivery for tacrolimus. Comparative, prospective randomized trials are necessary to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of SL tacrolimus in lung transplant patients. Until such data are available, the use of SL tacrolimus should be considered in situations where alternative routes of delivery are unavailable or as part of ongoing research studies. Ultimately, SL tacrolimus may prove efficacious for short-term use in the early postoperative lung transplant recipients, particularly in patients with malabsorption problems such as CF transplant recipients.

Tacrolimus monotherapy in adult cardiac transplant recipients: intermediate-term results.

BACKGROUND: Tacrolimus (FK506) is a macrolide antibiotic that inhibits T-cell activation and proliferation. To date, all published trials have used tacrolimus and steroids in combination with either azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil. Previous experience with pediatric cardiac transplant patients at our institution suggested that use of tacrolimus alone provides an adequate level of immunosuppression and that withdrawal of steroids is readily achieved in most recipients. Between January 1, 1996, and July 7, 1999, we performed 77 adult cardiac transplants. Forty-three of these patients received tacrolimus and prednisone as primary immunosuppression, without azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil. Thirty-two of the 43 patients started on tacrolimus have been weaned off steroids and are maintained on monotherapy. These latter patients form the basis of this report. The mean time for achieving monotherapy was 246 +/- 127 days (range, 106 to 730). Grade > or = 2 rejection occurred at 0.40 episodes per patient in the first 90 days (a combination of Grades 2 and 3A/3B rejections). The freedom from treated rejection (includes all 3A/3B and Grade 2 rejection in the first 90 days) was 69% at 90 days and 52% at 1 year. One patient (of 32) had documented cytomegalovirus infection (gastritis) diagnosed at 8 months post-transplant. We observed 1 case of transplant vasculopathy and 1 case of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder during the follow-up period. Our results show that use of tacrolimus alone after steroid weaning provides effective immunosuppression with low incidence of rejection, cytomegalovirus infection, transplant arteriopathy, or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease.