Análisis económico de basiliximab en el trasplante renal.

BACKGROUND: Basiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal directed against the alpha-chain of the interleukin-2 receptor. International studies have shown that it is highly effective in preventing acute rejection in patients receiving Neoral, and causes no measurable incremental toxicity, but its economic value remains unknown. METHODS: This study employed an economic model to examine the potential economic benefit of basiliximab. Parameter estimates were derived from a randomized, prospective, double-blind study conducted in 21 renal transplant centers in seven countries in which 380 adult primary allograft recipients were randomized within center to receive basiliximab (20 mg i.v.) on days 0 and 4 or placebo in addition to dual immunosuppression with Neoral and steroids. Key clinical events included primary hospitalization, immunosuppressive drug use, patient and graft survival, graft rejection, treatment of rejection, dialysis, and repeat hospitalization. Health resources were valued via a comprehensive electronic cost dictionary, based upon a detailed economic evaluation of renal transplantation in Canada. Medication costs were calculated from hospital pharmacy acquisition costs; basiliximab was assessed a zero cost. RESULTS: The average estimated cost per patient for the first year after transplant was $55,393 (Canadian dollars) for placebo and $50,839 for basiliximab, rising to $141,690 and $130,592, respectively, after 5 years. A principal component of the cost in both groups was accrued during the initial transplant hospitalization ($14,663 for standard therapy and $14,099 for basiliximab). An additional $15,852 and $14,130 was attributable to continued care, graft loss, and dialysis in the two groups, whereas follow-up hospitalization consumed an additional $15,538 for placebo and $13,916 for basiliximab. The mean incremental cost of dialysis was $5,397 for placebo compared with $3,821 for basiliximab, whereas incremental costs of graft loss were $2,548 compared with $2,295 in the two treatment groups. The principal costs associated with repeat admission to the transplant ward and the general ward were marginally higher for placebo ($7,395 vs. $6,300 and $5,986 vs. $4,625). Treatment of acute rejection and maintenance immunosuppressive drug use were associated with only limited savings as a result of basiliximab (savings <$200 each). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the most influential parameters affecting the savings as a result of using basiliximab were a reduction in the duration of initial and repeat hospitalization followed by the reduced risks of acute rejection and graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Before accounting for the cost of the therapy itself, basiliximab produces an estimated economic saving of $4,554 during the first year after transplant, of which $3,344 is attributable to the reduced costs of graft dysfunction, including graft loss and dialysis ($1,722) and follow-up hospitalizations ($1,622). When marketed, basiliximab is expected to cost approximately $3,000 per course (two doses of 20 mg), resulting in a net first-year saving of $1,554. Under these circumstances, basiliximab can be considered a dominant therapy in renal transplantation.