Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cost-effectiveness of Preemptive Therapy Versus Prophylaxis in a Randomized Clinical Trial for the Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Disease in Seronegative Liver Transplant Recipients With Seropositive Donors.
Singh, Nina; Winston, Drew J; Razonable, Raymund R; Lyon, G Marshall; Silveira, Fernanda P; Wagener, Marilyn M; Limaye, Ajit P.
Afiliação
  • Singh N; University of Pittsburgh and Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Winston DJ; University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  • Razonable RR; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
  • Lyon GM; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Silveira FP; University of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Wagener MM; University of Pittsburgh and Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Limaye AP; University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(9): e2739-e2745, 2021 11 02.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32712663
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The relative costs of preemptive therapy (PET) or prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in high-risk donor CMV-seropositive/recipient-seronegative (D+/R-) liver transplant recipients have not been assessed in the context of a randomized trial.

METHODS:

A decision tree model was constructed based on the probability of outcomes in a randomized controlled trial that compared valganciclovir as PET or prophylaxis for 100 days in 205 D+/R- liver transplant recipients. Itemized costs for each site were obtained from a federal cost transparency database. Total costs included costs of implementation of the strategy and CMV disease treatment-related costs. Net cost per patient was estimated from the decision tree for each strategy.

RESULTS:

PET was associated with a 10% lower absolute rate of CMV disease (9% vs 19%). The cost of treating a case of CMV disease in our patients was $88 190. Considering cost of implementation of strategy and treatment-related cost for CMV disease, the net cost-savings per patient associated with PET was $8707 compared to prophylaxis. PET remained cost-effective across a range of assumptions (varying costs of monitoring and treatment, and rates of disease).

CONCLUSIONS:

PET is the dominant CMV prevention strategy in that it was associated with lower rates of CMV disease and lower overall costs compared to prophylaxis in D+/R- liver transplant recipients. Costs were driven primarily by more hospitalizations and higher CMV disease-associated costs due to delayed onset postprophylaxis disease in the prophylaxis group.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Transplante de Fígado / Infecções por Citomegalovirus Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Infect Dis Assunto da revista: DOENCAS TRANSMISSIVEIS Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Transplante de Fígado / Infecções por Citomegalovirus Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Infect Dis Assunto da revista: DOENCAS TRANSMISSIVEIS Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos