Economic impact and long-term graft outcomes of mycophenolate mofetil dosage modifications following gastrointestinal complications in renal transplant recipients

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 26, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 951-967

  Machnicki, Gerardo ^a   Ricci, Jean Francois ^a   Brennan, Daniel C ^b   Schnitzler, Mark A ^c  

^a NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adverse drug reactions; Cost utility; Gastrointestinal disorders, treatment; Mycophenolate mofetil, therapeutic use; Renal transplant; Renal transplant rejection, treatment

Indexed keywords

MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COST OF ILLNESS; DEATH; DIALYSIS; DRUG DOSE REDUCTION; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE; GRAFT FAILURE; GRAFT RECIPIENT; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LONG TERM CARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICARE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; COHORT STUDIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASES; GRAFT REJECTION; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MARKOV CHAINS; MEDICARE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 53849118142     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826110-00007     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Kalo Z, Jaray J, Nagy J. Economic evaluation of kidney transplantation versus hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease in Hungary. Prog Transplant 2001 Sep; 11 (3): 188-93
2. Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N, et al. A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 235-42
3. Mutinga N, Brennan D, Schnitzler MA. Consequences of eliminating HLA-B in deceased donor kidney allocation to increase minority transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 1090-8
4. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999 Dec 2; 341 (23): 1725-30
5. Halloran PF. Immunosppressive drugs for kidney transplantation. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2715-29
6. Keown P. Improving quality of life: the new target for transplantation. Transplantation 2001 Dec 27; 72 (12 Suppl.): S67-74
7. Meier-Kriesche HU, Schold JD, Srinivas TR, et al. Lack of improvement in renal allograft survival despite a marked decrease in acute rejection rates over the most recent era. Am J Transplant 2004 Mar; 4 (3): 378-83
8. Santiago-Delpin EA, Morales-Otero LA, Gonzalez ZA. Gastrointestinal complications and appendicitis after kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 1989 Aug; 21 (4): 3745-8
9. Kahan BD. Efficacy of sirolimus compared with azathioprine for reduction of acute renal allograft rejection: a randomised multicentre study. The Rapamune US Study Group. Lancet 2000 Jul 15; 356 (9225): 194-202
10. Pirsch JD, Miller J, Deierhoi MH, et al. A comparison of tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression after cadaveric renal transplantation. FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 1997 Apr 15; 63 (7): 977-83
11. Rossi SJ, Schroeder TJ, Hariharan S, et al. Prevention and management of the adverse effects associated with immunosuppressive therapy. Drug Saf 1993 Aug; 9 (2): 104-31
12. Troppmann C, Papalois BE, Chiou A, et al. Incidence, complications, treatment, and outcome of ulcers of the upper gastrointestinal tract after renal transplantation during the cyclosporine era. J Am Coll Surg 1995 Apr; 180 (4): 433-43
13. Meyers WC, Harris N, Stein S, et al. Alimentary tract complications after renal transplantation. Ann Surg 1979 Oct; 190 (4): 535-42
14. European Mycophenolate Mofetil cooperative Study Group. Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cycloporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Lancet 1995 May 27; 345 (8961): 1321-5
15. Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation 1995 Aug 15; 60 (3): 225-32
16. Allison AC, Eugui EM. Mycophenolate mofetil and its mechanisms of action. Immunopharmacology 2000 May; 47 (2-3): 85-118
17. Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. Transplantation 2000 Jun 15; 69 (11): 2405-9
18. Bunnapradist S, Lentine KL, Burroughs TE, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil dose reductions and discontinuations after gastrointestinal complications are associated with renal transplant graft failure. Transplantation 2006 Jul 15; 82 (1): 102-7
19. Hardinger KL, Brennan DC, Lowell J, et al. Long-term outcome of gastrointestinal complications in renal transplant patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Transpl Int 2004 Nov; 17 (10): 609-16
20. Knoll GA, MacDonald I, Khan A, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil dose reduction and the risk of acute rejection after renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003 Sep; 14 (9): 2381-6
21. Pelletier RP, Akin B, Henry ML, et al. The impact of mycophenolate mofetil dosing patterns on clinical outcome after renal transplantation. Clin Transplant 2003 Jun; 17 (3): 200-5
22. Tierce JC, Porterfield-Baxa J, Petrilla AA, et al. Impact of mycophenolate mofetil (mycophenolate mofetil)-related gastrointestinal complications and mycophenolate mofetil dose alterations on transplant outcomes and healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients. Clin Transplant 2005 Dec; 19 (6): 779-84
23. United States Renal Data System. Researcher's guide to the USRDS database. Bethesda (MD): National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2004
24. Beck JR, Pauker SG. The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making 1983; 3 (4): 419-58
25. Briggs A, Sculper M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (4): 397-409
26. Whiting JF. Standards for economic and quality of life studies in transplantation. Transplantation 2000 Oct 15; 70 (7): 1115-21
27. Yen EF, Hardinger K, Brennan DC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of extending Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive medications to the life of a kidney transplant. Am J Transplant 2004 Oct; 4 (10): 1703-8
28. Whiting JF, Kiberd B, Kalo Z, et al. Cost-effectiveness of organ donation: evaluating investment into donor action and other donor initiatives. Am J Transplant 2004 Apr; 4 (4): 569-73
29. Hornberger JC, Best JH, Garrison Jr LP. Cost-effectiveness of repeat medical procedures: kidney transplantation as an example. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 363-72
30. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
31. Consumer price index. Washington, DC: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002
32. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457-81
33. Pasta DJ, Cisternas MG. Estimating standard errors for CLASS variables in generalized linear models using PROC IML [paper 264-28]. Sugi 26 [online]. Available from URL: http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi28/264-28.pdf [Accessed 2007 Nov 15]
34. Callahan M, Battleman DS, Christos P, et al. Economic consequences of renal dysfunction among cardiopulmonary bypass surgery patients: a hospital-based perspective. Value Health 2003 Mar-Apr; 6 (2): 137-43
35. Zhan C, Miller MR. Excess length of stay, charges, and mortality attributable to medical injuries during hospitalization. JAMA 2003 Oct 8; 290 (14): 1868-74
36. Kleinman L, Faull R, Walker R, et al. Gastrointestinal-specific patient reported outcome instruments differentiate between renal transplant patients with or without GI complications. Transplant Proc 2005; 37 (2): 846-9
37. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000 May; 17 (5): 479-500
38. Fenwick E, O'Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004 May; 13 (5): 405-15
39. Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA, et al. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 2000 Mar 2; 342 (9): 605-12
40. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Group. A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1996 Apr 15; 61 (7): 1029-37
41. Behrend M. Adverse gastrointestinal effects of mycophenolate mofetil: aetiology, incidence and management. Drug Saf 2001; 24 (9): 645-63
42. Stirnemann PM, Takemoto SK, Schnitzler MA, et al. Agreement of immunosuppression regimens described in Medicare pharmacy claims with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network survey. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006 Aug; 17 (8): 2299-306
43. Meier-Kriesche HU, Li S, Gruessner RW, et al. Immunosuppression: evolution in practice and trends, 1994-2004. Am J Transplant 2006; 6 (5 Pt 2): 1111-31
44. Lin DY. Linear regression analysis of censored medical costs. Biostatistics 2000 Mar; 1 (1): 35-47
45. Chan L, Mulgaonkar S, Walker R, et al. Patient-reported gastrointestinal symptom burden and health-related quality of life following conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium. Transplantation 2006 May 15; 81 (9): 1290-7