Economic implications of the use of basiliximab in addition to triple immunosuppressive therapy in renal allograft recipients: a UK perspective

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.

Basiliximab: efficacy and safety evaluation in kidney transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Basiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha chain of interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R). When administered intravenously at a dosage of 20 mg at the time of transplantation and 4 days later, basiliximab saturates the alpha chain of IL-2R for 4 weeks.

AREAS COVERED

This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of basiliximab in kidney transplantation. Randomized controlled trials showed that basiliximab can significantly reduce the incidence of acute rejection without increasing the risk of adverse events. When compared with other antibodies used for induction, basiliximab showed efficacy and safety profiles similar to daclizumab, another monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha chain of IL-2R. In comparison with rabbit anti-thymocyte globulins (rATG), basiliximab showed a similar efficacy. However, in patients at higher risk of rejection, rATG proved to be more effective. No serious safety problems related to basiliximab have been reported.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a solid evidence that basiliximab can significantly decrease the risk of acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients without increasing adverse events. This can allow decreased dosage or avoidance of glucocorticoids and reduced dosage of calcineurin inhibitors. On the basis of efficacy, tolerability, ease of administration, and cost effectiveness, basiliximab may be considered the drug of choice for the prophylaxis of acute rejection in standard renal transplant recipients.

Use of number needed to treat in cost-effectiveness analyses

OBJECTIVE

To review the use of number needed to treat (NNT) and/or number needed to harm (NNH) values to determine their relevance in helping clinicians evaluate cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and EconLit were searched from 1966 to September 2012.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Reviews, editorials, non-English-language articles, and articles that did not report NNT/NNH or cost-effectiveness ratios were excluded. CEA studies reporting cost per life-year gained, per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), or other cost per effectiveness measure were included. Full texts of all included articles were reviewed for study information, including type of journal, impact factor of the journal, focus of study, data source, publication year, how NNT/NNH values were reported, and outcome measures.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 188 studies were initially identified, with 69 meeting our inclusion criteria. Most were published in clinician-practice-focused journals (78.3%) while 5.8% were in policy-focused journals, and 15.9% in health-economics-focused journals. The majority (72.4%) of the articles were published in high-impact journals (impact factor >3.0). Many articles focused on either disease treatment (40.5%) or disease prevention (40.5%). Forty-eight percent reported NNT as a part of the CEA ratio per event. Most (53.6%) articles used data from literature reviews, while 24.6% used data from randomized clinical trials, and 20.3% used data from observational studies. In addition, 10% of the studies implemented modeling to perform CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

CEA studies sometimes include NNT ratios. Although it has several limitations, clinicians often use NNT for decision-making, so including NNT information alongside CEA findings may help clinicians better understand and apply CEA results. Further research is needed to assess how NNT/NNH might meaningfully be incorporated into CEA publications.

The role of basiliximab in the evolving renal transplantation immunosuppression protocol

Basiliximab is a chimeric mouse-human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha chain of the interleukin-2 (IL-2) receptor on activated T lymphocytes. It was shown in phase III trials to reduce the number and severity of acute rejection episodes in the first year following renal transplantation in adults and children, with a reasonable cost-benefit ratio. The drug does not increase the incidence of opportunistic infections or malignancies above baseline in patients treated with conventional calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppression. In the field of renal transplantation, basiliximab does not increase kidney or patient survival, despite the reduction in the number of rejection episodes. Basiliximab may reduce the incidence of delayed graft function. In comparison with lymphocyte-depleting antibodies basiliximab appears to have equal efficacy in standard immunological risk patients. Recently, IL-2 receptor monoclonal antibodies have been used with the objective of reducing or eliminating the more toxic elements of the standard immunosuppression protocol. Several trials have incorporated basiliximab in protocols designed to avoid or withdraw rapidly corticosteroids, as well as protocols which substitute target-of-rapamycin (TOR) inhibitors for calcineurin inhibitors.

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.

Polyclonal Antibodies in Renal Transplantation—A Relook

Polyclonal antibodies have been used in renal transplantation for the past four decades. Increasing knowledge regarding their varied mechanisms of action have confirmed their versatility in clinical practice. They can be used for induction, reversing acute rejections (especially those resistant to steroids), and possibly conferring an element of allotolerance, thereby reducing chronic allograft nephropathy. Their recent usage as IV bolus, single-dose, preoperative infusion as induction therapy in renal transplantation is an attractive and extremely cost-effective strategy, especially in a developing country such as India.

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 antagonist induction in modern immunosuppression regimens for renal transplant recipients

Addition of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2RA) induction to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based regimens reduces biopsy-proven acute rejection by 30-40%. IL-2RA induction facilitates early withdrawal of steroids, and supports the safe use of reduced-exposure CNI or delayed CNI introduction. IL-2RAs and rabbit antithymocyte globulin (Thymoglobulin) show comparable efficacy in patients at standard or low immunologic risk, but the adverse event profiles of lymphocyte-depleting agents are less favorable. IL-2RAs, uniquely, provide effective immunosuppression with similar tolerability to placebo.

Cost-effectiveness of organ donation: evaluating investment into donor action and other donor initiatives

Initiatives aimed at increasing organ donation can be considered health care interventions, and will compete with other health care interventions for limited resources. We have developed a model capable of calculating the cost-utility of organ donor initiatives and applied it to Donor Action, a successful international program designed to optimize donor practices. The perspective of the payer in the Canadian health care system was chosen. A Markov model was developed to estimate the net present value incremental lifetime direct medical costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as a consequence of increased kidney transplantation rates. Cost-saving and cost-effectiveness thresholds were calculated. The effects of changing the success rate and time frame of the intervention was examined as a sensitivity analysis. Transplantation results in a gain of 1.99 QALYs and a cost savings of Can$104,000 over the 20-year time frame compared with waiting on dialysis. Implementation of an intervention such as Donor Action, which produced as few as three extra donors per million population, would be cost-effective at a cost of Can$1.0 million per million population. The cost-effectiveness of Donor Action and other organ donor initiatives compare favorably to other health care interventions. Organ donation may be underfunded in North America.

Anti-Interleukin-2 Receptor Antibodies in Transplantation

Two monoclonal antibody preparations against the alpha-chain of the interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2Ralpha) are available for use, basiliximab and daclizumab, a chimeric and a humanised antibody, respectively. The first clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of these agents as induction therapy to reduce the rate of acute rejection after organ transplantation. Basiliximab and daclizumab have a similar effect on prevention of acute rejection. Likewise, incidence of infections and malignancies are not different between the two treatment options. Anti-IL-2Ralpha therapy was very well tolerated in clinical trials. Phase III studies with basiliximab have been undertaken with a two-dose regimen, consisting of two doses of 20mg, in an attempt to saturate the IL-2Ralpha on peripheral blood T lymphocytes for an average of 4-6 weeks. In contrast, the daclizumab dose is corrected for bodyweight and the goal is to achieve IL-2Ralpha blockade for 12 weeks. Phase III efficacy trials with daclizumab have, therefore, been developed with five doses of 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks in the first 2 months after transplantation. Whether or not it is a benefit to have blockade of the IL-2Ralpha for 10-12 weeks (daclizumab) compared with 4-6 weeks (basiliximab) remains unknown. Assuming 4-6 weeks would be sufficient for prevention of acute rejection, many centres have changed the protocol of daclizumab administration to two doses, the first dose given at the time of transplantation, the second 10 or 14 days after, with good success. Therefore, it seems feasible to limit the dose of daclizumab, which increases the ease of administration and probably also the cost effectiveness of this agent. There are no controlled studies comparing basiliximab and daclizumab, nor have different dose regimens been directly compared in renal transplantation. The data available suggest the differences are small, if present at all, and it is unlikely that such a trial will ever be done. With both compounds, a significant reduction in the number of acute rejection episodes following solid organ transplantation can be obtained without an increase in adverse effects or infectious complications.