Cost utility analysis of immunosuppressive regimens in adult renal transplant recipients in England and Wales

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is the irreversible final stage of chronic kidney disease and is fatal when not managed by either transplantation or dialysis. Transplantation is generally preferred over dialysis. However, to prevent graft rejection or loss, lifelong immunosuppression is required. Tacrolimus is currently the cornerstone of post-transplantation immunosuppression. The study aim was to carry out an economic evaluation of immunosuppression, including more recent agents such as a once-daily prolonged-release formulation of tacrolimus (Advagraf™) and belatacept, relative to a twice-daily immediate-release formulation of tacrolimus (Prograf™). METHODS: A model was constructed comprising six states: onset of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection, functioning graft with or without a biopsy-confirmed acute rejection, non-functioning graft (dialysis), re-transplantation, and death. Data on clinical effectiveness were derived from a systematic literature review and the model captured the effects of patient adherence to immunosuppressant therapy on graft survival using relative risk of graft survival and published data on adherence in patients using Advagraf and Prograf. In the base case, the time horizon was 25 years and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The analysis demonstrated that Prograf was cost-effective when compared with cyclosporin and belatacept and was more effective than sirolimus, but would not be considered cost-effective against sirolimus. The modeled improvement in the adherence profile of patients using Advagraf relative to Prograf resulted in both improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs. CONCLUSION: Prograf was more clinically effective than cyclosporin, belatacept, and sirolimus, supporting its current positioning as the mainstay of immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant recipients. Based on improved patient adherence with Advagraf, the model projected that Advagraf would be both more effective and less costly than Prograf. Replacing Prograf with Advagraf as the standard of care for post-transplant immunosuppression could likely result in both cost savings and improved clinical outcomes.