Healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients using branded versus generic ciclosporin

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 61-68

  Helderman, J Harold ^a   Kang, Ning ^b   Legorreta, Antonio P ^b,c   Chen, Judy Y ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b IQVIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOSPORIN A; GENERIC DRUG; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BILLING AND CLAIMS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT CARE; PRESCRIPTION;

ADULT; COST SAVINGS; CYCLOSPORINE; DRUGS, GENERIC; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 74249110420     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11530720-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Calne RY, Rolles K, White DJ, et al. Cyclosporin A initially as the only immunosuppressant in 34 recipients of cadaveric organs: 32 kidneys, 2 pancreases, and 2 livers. Lancet 1979 Nov 17; 2 (8151): 1033-1036
2. Ferguson RM, Henry ML, Elkhammas EA, et al. Twenty years of renal transplantation at Ohio State University: the results of five eras of immunosuppression. Am J Surg 2003 Sep; 186 (3): 306-311
3. Frei U. Overview of the clinical experience with Neoral in transplantation. Transplant Proc 1999May; 31 (3): 1669-1674
4. David-Neto E, Kakehashi E, Alves CF, et al. Bioequivalence of a new cyclosporine a formulation to Neoral. Ther Drug Monit 2004 Feb; 26 (1): 53-57
5. Masri MA, Haberal M, Rizvi A, et al. The pharmacokinetics of Equoral versus Neoral in stable renal transplant patients: a multinational multicenter study. Transplant Proc 2004 Jan-Feb; 36 (1): 80-83
6. Roza A, Tomlanovich S,Merion R, et al. Conversion of stable renal allograft recipients to a bioequivalent cyclosporine formulation. Transplantation 2002 Oct 15; 74 (7): 1013-1017
7. Zafar MN, Ahmed E, Alam A, et al. Study of a new generic cyclosporine, Consupren, in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2002 Sep; 34 (6): 2480-2481
8. Pollard S, Nashan B, Johnston A, et al. A pharmacokinetic and clinical review of the potential clinical impact of using different formulations of cyclosporin A. Berlin, Germany, November 19, 2001. Clin Ther 2003 Jun; 25 (6): 1654-1669
9. Alloway RR. Generic immunosuppressant use in solid organ transplantation. Transplant Proc 1999 May; 31 (3A Suppl.): 2S-5S
10. Alloway RR, Isaacs R, Lake K, et al. Report of the American Society of Transplantation conference on immunosuppressive drugs and the use of generic immunosuppressants. Am J Transplant 2003 Oct; 3 (10): 1211-1215
11. Barr WH. Scientific and professional concerns regarding product interchange and subsequent monitoring of cyclosporine and other critical dose drugs. Transplant Proc 1999 May; 31 (3): 1645-168; discussion 75-84
12. Bartucci MR. Issues in cyclosporine drug substitution: implications for patient management. J Transpl Coord 1999 Sep; 9 (3): 137-42; quiz 43-44
13. Johnston A, Holt DW. Bioequivalence criteria for cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1999 May; 31 (3): 1649-1653
14. Kahan BD. Considerations concerning generic formulations of immunosuppressive drugs. Transplant Proc 1999 May; 31 (3): 1635-1641
15. Sabatini S, Ferguson RM, Helderman JH, et al. Drug substitution in transplantation: a National Kidney Foundation White Paper. Am J Kidney Dis 1999 Feb; 33 (2): 389-397
16. Qazi YA, Forrest A, Tornatore K, et al. The clinical impact of 1:1 conversion from Neoral to a generic cyclosporine (Gengraf) in renal transplant recipients with stable graft function. Clin Transplant 2006 May-Jun; 20 (3): 313-317
17. Zuckermann A, Klepetko W. Use of cyclosporine in thoracic transplantation. Transplant Proc 2004 Mar; 36 (2 Suppl.): 331S-6S
18. Kingma I, Ludwin D, Dandavino R, et al. Economic analysis of Neoral in de novo renal transplant patients in Canada. Clin Transplant 1997 Feb; 11 (1): 42-48
19. Gilmore AS, Helderman JH, Ricci JF, et al. Linking the US transplant registry to administrative claims data: expanding the potential of transplant research. Med Care 2007 Jun; 45 (6): 529-536
20. Gross domestic product deflator inflation calculator [online]. Available from URL: http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/ inflateGDP.html [Accessed 2008 Jul 30]
21. Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, et al. Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000 Dec; 53 (12): 1258-1267
22. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992 Jun; 45 (6): 613-619
23. Carey K. A multilevel modelling approach to analysis of patient costs under managed care. Health Econ 2000 Jul; 9 (5): 435-446
24. Baser O. Modeling transformed health care cost with unknown heteroskedasticity. Appl Econ Res 2007; 1: 1-6
25. Hibberd AD, Trevillian PR, Roger SD, et al. Assessment of the bioequivalence of a generic cyclosporine A by a randomized controlled trial in stable renal recipients. Transplantation 2006 Mar 15; 81 (5): 711-717
26. Cattaneo D, Perico N, Remuzzi G. Generic cyclosporine formulations: more open questions than answers. Transpl Int 2005 Apr; 18 (4): 371-378
27. Olyaei AJ, deMattos AM, Bennett WM. The impact of generic drugs on the cost of transplantation medical care. Transplant Proc 1999 May; 31 (3A Suppl.): 31S-4S
28. Sharma A, Shekhar C, Heer M, et al. Comparison of generic cyclosporine microemulsion versus Neoral in de novo renal transplant recipients managed by 2-hour postdose monitoring. Transplant Proc 2006 Sep; 38 (7): 2051-2053