Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of Simulect prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients

Cost Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based orphan drugs have led to advances in the treatment of diseases by selectively targeting molecule functions. However, their high treatment costs impose a substantial cost burden on patients and society.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to systematically review cost-effectiveness evidence of mAb orphan drugs.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®), and PsycINFO(®) were searched in June 2014 and articles were selected if they conducted economic evaluations of the mAb orphan drugs that had received marketing approval in the USA. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

RESULTS

We reviewed 16 articles that included 24 economic evaluations of nine mAb orphan drugs. Six of these nine drugs were included in cost-utility analysis studies, whereas three drugs were included in cost-effectiveness analysis studies. Previous cost-utility analysis studies revealed that four mAb orphan drugs (cetuximab, ipilimumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) were found to be cost effective; one drug (bevacizumab) was not cost effective; and one drug (infliximab) was not consistent across the studies. Prior cost-effectiveness analysis studies which included three mAb orphan drugs (adalimumab, alemtuzumab, and basiliximab) showed that the incremental cost per effectiveness gained for these drugs ranged from $US4669 to $Can52,536 Canadian dollars. The quality of the included studies was good or fair with the exception of one study.

CONCLUSIONS

Some mAb orphan drugs were reported as cost effective under the current decision-making processes. Use of these expensive drugs, however, can raise an equity issue which concerns fairness in access to treatment. The issue of equal access to drugs needs to be considered alongside other societal values in making the final health policy decisions.

Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists (IL2Ra) are used as induction therapy for prophylaxis against acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Use of IL2Ra has increased steadily since their introduction, but the proportion of new transplant recipients receiving IL2Ra differs around the globe, with 27% of new kidney transplant recipients in the United States, and 70% in Australasia receiving IL2Ra in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically identify and summarise the effects of using an IL2Ra, as an addition to standard therapy, or as an alternative to another immunosuppressive induction strategy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify new records, and authors of included reports were contacted for clarification where necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing IL2Ra to placebo, no treatment, other IL2Ra or other antibody therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted and assessed independently by two authors, with differences resolved by discussion. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 71 studies (306 reports, 10,537 participants). Where IL2Ra were compared with placebo (32 studies; 5,784 patients) graft loss including death with a functioning graft was reduced by 25% at six months (16 studies: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.98) and one year (24 studies: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90), but not beyond this. At one year biopsy-proven acute rejection was reduced by 28% (14 studies: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.81), and there was a 19% reduction in CMV disease (13 studies: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97). There was a 64% reduction in early malignancy within six months (8 studies: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86), and creatinine was lower (7 studies: MD -8.18 micromol/L 95% CI -14.28 to -2.09) but these differences were not sustained.When IL2Ra were compared to ATG (16 studies, 2211 participants), there was no difference in graft loss at any time point, or for acute rejection diagnosed clinically, but the was benefit of ATG therapy over IL2Ra for biopsy-proven acute rejection at one year (8 studies:, RR 1.30 95% CI 1.01 to 1.67), but at the cost of a 75% increase in malignancy (7 studies: RR 0.25 95% CI 0.07 to 0.87) and a 32% increase in CMV disease (13 studies: RR 0.68 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Serum creatinine was significantly lower for IL2Ra treated patients at six months (4 studies: MD -11.20 micromol/L 95% CI -19.94 to -2.09). ATG patients experienced significantly more fever, cytokine release syndrome and other adverse reactions to drug administration and more leucopenia but not thrombocytopenia. There were no significant differences in outcomes according to cyclosporine or tacrolimus use, azathioprine or mycophenolate, or to the study populations baseline risk for acute rejection. There was no evidence that effects were different according to whether equine or rabbit ATG was used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given a 38% risk of rejection, per 100 recipients compared with no treatment, nine recipients would need treatment with IL2Ra to prevent one recipient having rejection, 42 to prevent one graft loss, and 38 to prevent one having CMV disease over the first year post-transplantation. Compared with ATG treatment, ATG may prevent some experiencing acute rejection, but 16 recipients would need IL2Ra to prevent one having CMV, but 58 would need IL2Ra to prevent one having malignancy. There are no apparent differences between basiliximab and daclizumab. IL2Ra are as effective as other antibody therapies and with significantly fewer side effects.

Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region

Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations (HEEs) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations. Nevertheless, while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods, they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs. HEEs, as context-specific tools, are not easily generalizable from setting to setting. Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries. Therefore, a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC (trans-regional) and to other LAC countries (intra-regional), respectively. We conducted a systematic review, searching the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Office of Health Economics Health Economic Evaluation Database (HEED), LILACS (Latin America health bibliographic database) and NEVALAT (Latin American Network on HEE) to identify HEEs published between 1980 and 2004. We included individual patient- and model-based HEEs (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit and cost-consequences analyses) that involved at least one LAC country. Data were extracted by three independent reviewers using a checklist validated by regional and international experts. From 521 studies retrieved, 72 were full HEEs (39% randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 32% models, 17% non-randomized studies and 12% mixed trial-modeling approach). Over one-third of identified studies did not specifically report the type of HEE. Cost-effectiveness and cost-consequence analyses accounted for almost 80% of the studies. The three Latin American countries with the highest participation in HEE studies were Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. While we found relatively good standards of reporting the study's question, population, interventions, comparators and conclusions, the overall reporting was poor, and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident (i.e. absence of incremental analysis, of discounting long-term costs and effects). Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent. Of the 49 trial-based analyses, 43% were single centre, 33% multinational and 18% multicentre national. Main reporting problems included issues related to sample representativeness, data collection and data analysis. Of the 32 model-based studies (most commonly using epidemiological models), main problems included the inadequacy of search strategy, range selection for sensitivity analysis and theoretical justifications. There are a number of issues associated with the reporting and methodology used in multinational and local HEE studies relevant for LAC that preclude the assessment of their generalizability and potential transferability. Although the quality of reporting and methodology used in model-based HEEs was somewhat higher than those from trial-based HEEs, economic evaluation methodology was usually weak and less developed than the analysis of clinical data. Improving these aspects in LAC HEE studies is paramount to maximizing their potential benefits such as increasing the generalizability/transferability of their results.

Update on Pharmacoeconomics in Transplantation

Purpose

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.

The role of basiliximab induction therapy in organ transplantation

Basiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the alpha-subunit (CD25) of IL-2 receptors on the surface of activated T lymphocytes, and is a highly effective prophylaxis agent against rejection in organ transplant recipients. Its pharmacokinetic profile is characterized by a biphasic and slow clearance with long terminal half-life and a volume of distribution within the central compartment and outside the circulatory system. Basiliximab induction demonstrated an excellent safety profile, with no increase in the incidence of malignancy, infections or death. It has also been used effectively in high-risk recipients, steroid-sparing and steroid-minimization protocols, and in post-transplant patients with renal dysfunction who would benefit from delayed introduction of calcineurin inhibitors. Basiliximab induction therapy given at days 0 and 4 after transplantation appears to be safe and cost-effective for immunoprophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients, specifically in kidney and liver transplantation, when given in conjunction with dual or triple immunosuppressive therapy.

Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists (IL2Ra) are used as induction therapy for prophylaxis against acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Use of IL2Ra has increased steadily, with 38% of new kidney transplant recipients in the United States, and 23% in Australasia receiving IL2Ra in 2002.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to systematically identify and summarise the effects of using an IL2Ra, as an addition to standard therapy, or as an alternative to other antibody therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (June 2003), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (in The Cochrane Library issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966-November 2002) and EMBASE (1980-November 2002). Reference lists and abstracts of conference proceedings and scientific meetings were hand-searched from 1998-2003. Trial groups, authors of included reports and drug manufacturers were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing IL2Ra to placebo, no treatment, other IL2Ra or other antibody therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers, with differences resolved by discussion. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen reports from 38 trials involving 4893 participants were included. Where IL2Ra were compared with placebo (17 trials; 2786 patients), graft loss was not significantly different at one (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04) or three years (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22). Acute rejection (AR) was significantly reduced at six months (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74) and at one year (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75). At one year, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03) and malignancy (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.36) were not significantly different. Where IL2Ra were compared with other antibody therapy no significant differences in treatment effects were demonstrated, but adverse effects strongly favoured IL2Ra.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Given a 40% risk of rejection, seven patients would need treatment with IL2Ra to prevent one patient having rejection, with no definite improvement in graft or patient survival. There is no apparent difference between basiliximab and daclizumab. IL2Ra are as effective as other antibody therapies and with significantly fewer side effects