OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sirolimus compared with cyclosporin for the postsurgical management of renal transplant recipients, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and the Personal Social Service. METHODS: A discrete event stochastic simulation model was developed to evaluate both cost-effectiveness and cost utility over 10 and 20 years after transplant using historical data on 937 renal transplant recipients from the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, United Kingdom. The simulation was designed to forecast the incidence of acute rejection events, graft failure, retransplant, frequency of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), and death. Cox proportional hazard models were derived from historical transplant data, in which 1-, 2-, and 3-year post-transplant serum creatinine levels were used as the key drivers for predicting graft success and survival. Costs were reported as year-2003 UK pounds sterling (1 UK pound = US $1.76). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted and results reported with particular attention to 2 threshold values, 30,000/QALY and 20,000/QALY RESULTS: Over a 10-year time horizon, treatment with sirolimus was projected to produce a gain of 0.60 discounted year of functioning graft with a cost savings of 276 UK pounds per patient. Over a 20-year time horizon these benefits increased to 1.59 discounted years of functioning graft and a cost savings of 7405 UK pounds per patient. Using sensitivity analysis of the 10-year model, the only factors found to cause the probability of exceeding a 30,000 ceiling to be >5% were the proportion of subjects maintaining continuous graft function and the use of low-dose cyclosporin. With the 20-year model, sirolimus maintained cost-effectiveness across most scenarios in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this model analysis, sirolimus was cost-effective compared with cyclosporin for 10 to 20 years after renal transplantation in the United Kingdom, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Service.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sirolimus compared with cyclosporin for the postsurgical management of renal transplant recipients, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and the Personal Social Service. METHODS: A discrete event stochastic simulation model was developed to evaluate both cost-effectiveness and cost utility over 10 and 20 years after transplant using historical data on 937 renal transplant recipients from the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, United Kingdom. The simulation was designed to forecast the incidence of acute rejection events, graft failure, retransplant, frequency of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), and death. Cox proportional hazard models were derived from historical transplant data, in which 1-, 2-, and 3-year post-transplant serum creatinine levels were used as the key drivers for predicting graft success and survival. Costs were reported as year-2003 UK pounds sterling (1 UK pound = US $1.76). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted and results reported with particular attention to 2 threshold values, 30,000/QALY and 20,000/QALY RESULTS: Over a 10-year time horizon, treatment with sirolimus was projected to produce a gain of 0.60 discounted year of functioning graft with a cost savings of 276 UK pounds per patient. Over a 20-year time horizon these benefits increased to 1.59 discounted years of functioning graft and a cost savings of 7405 UK pounds per patient. Using sensitivity analysis of the 10-year model, the only factors found to cause the probability of exceeding a 30,000 ceiling to be >5% were the proportion of subjects maintaining continuous graft function and the use of low-dose cyclosporin. With the 20-year model, sirolimus maintained cost-effectiveness across most scenarios in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this model analysis, sirolimus was cost-effective compared with cyclosporin for 10 to 20 years after renal transplantation in the United Kingdom, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Service.
Authors: Joseph Menzin; Lisa M Lines; Daniel E Weiner; Peter J Neumann; Christine Nichols; Lauren Rodriguez; Irene Agodoa; Tracy Mayne Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Shien Guo; Duygu Bozkaya; Alexandra Ward; Judith A O'Brien; Khajak Ishak; Randy Bennett; Ahmad Al-Sabbagh; Dennis M Meletiche Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2009 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Stephanie R Earnshaw; Christopher N Graham; William D Irish; Reiko Sato; Mark A Schnitzler Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Karen L Hardinger; Sunny Rhee; Paula Buchanan; Matt Koch; Brent Miller; Decha Enkvetchakul; Rebecca Schuessler; Mark A Schnitzler; Daniel C Brennan Journal: Transplantation Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Bernadette Li; John A Cairns; Heather Draper; Christopher Dudley; John L Forsythe; Rachel J Johnson; Wendy Metcalfe; Gabriel C Oniscu; Rommel Ravanan; Matthew L Robb; Paul Roderick; Charles R Tomson; Christopher J E Watson; J Andrew Bradley Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 5.725