Economic evaluation of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in combination with cyclosporine and prednisolone in de novo renal transplant recipients

Transplant International

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 182-187

  Holmes, Michael ^a   Chilcott, Jim ^a   Walters, Stephen ^a   Whitby, Simon ^a   Akehurst, Ron ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Certican; Everolimus; Mycophenolate mofetil; Pharmacoeconomic

Indexed keywords

AMPHOTERICIN B; ANTILIPEMIC AGENT; ATENOLOL; CYCLOSPORIN A; EVEROLIMUS; FUROSEMIDE; METHYLPREDNISOLONE; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; NIFEDIPINE; OMEPRAZOLE; PREDNISOLONE; TACROLIMUS;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CADAVER DONOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG COST; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYCLOSPORINE; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; DRUG COSTS; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; PREDNISOLONE; SIROLIMUS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 2942556838     PISSN: 09340874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2004.tb00426.x     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Wilkinson A. Progress in the clinical application of immunosuppressive drugs in renal transplantation. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2001; 10(6):763.
2. Paul LC. Chronic allograft nephropathy: an update. Kidney Int 1999; 56:783.
3. Meier-Kriesche HU, Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Cibrik, D M, Punch JD, Leichtman AB, Kaplan B. Increased impact of acute rejection on chronic allograft failure in recent era. Transplantation 2000; 70:1098.
4. Viklicky O, Zou H, Müller V, Lacha J, Szabó A, Heemann U. Sdz-rad prevents manifestation of chronic rejection in rat renal allografts. Transplantation 2000; 69:497.
5. Cole OJ, Shehata M, Rigg KM. Effect of SDZ RAD on transplant arteriosclerosis in the rat aortic model. Transplant Proc 1998; 30:2200.
6. Eisen H, Dorent R, Mancini D, Valantine H, Vigano M, Starling R, et al. Safety and efficacy of everolimus (RAD) as part of a triple immunosuppressive regimen in de novo cardiac transplant recipients: six-month analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant 2002; 21:55.
7. Vitko Š, Margreiter R, Wiemar W et al. Everolimus (Certican) 12-month safety and efficacy versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplantation (in press)
8. Valantine H, Eisen H, Dorent R et al. 12-month results of a multicenter study comparing efficacy and safety of everolimus to azathioprine in de novo cardiac transplant recipients. American Transplant Congress 26 April-1 May 2002, Washington DC. Abstract 434.
9. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. Blackwell, Oxford; 1994.
10. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London. 1991.
11. Mourad G, Nashan B, Curtis J et al. A transplant odyssey. The future is here. Istanbul, Turkey S18:1, 2001.
12. Keown PA, Marra C, Balshaw R, Kalo Z. A 12-month economic analysis of immunosuppressive strategies containing Certican (RAD; Everolimus) and/or Simulect (Basiliximab) for renal transplantation. Proceedings of the 10th Congress of the European Society for Organ Transplantation. 109, 2001.