Cost-effectiveness analysis of individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing in kidney transplant patients in the APOMYGRE trial

Transplantation

Volumn 89, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1255-1262

  Rousseau, Annick ^a,b   Laroche, Marie Laure ^a,b   Venisse, Nicolas ^c   Loichot Roselmac, Cecile ^d   Turcant, Alain ^e   Hoizey, Guillaume ^f   Compagnon, Patricia ^g   Hary, Lionel ^h   Debruyne, Danièle ⁱ   Saivin, Sylvie ^j   Jacqz Aigrain, Evelyne ^k   Buchler, Mathias ^l   Villeneuve, Claire ^a,b   Vergnenègre, Alain ^a   Le Meur, Yannick ^a,b   Marquet, Pierre ^a,b  

^a LIMOGES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIMOGES   (France)

^c POITIERS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^d HÔPITAL CIVIL   (France)

^e ANGERS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^f REIMS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^g ROUEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^h AMIENS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

ⁱ CAEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^j TOULOUSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^k HÔPITAL ROBERT DEBRÉ   (France)

^l UNIVERSITÉ DE TOURS   (France)

more..

Author keywords

Cost analysis; Mycophenolate mofetil; Pharmacoeconomics; Renal transplantation; Therapeutic drug monitoring

Indexed keywords

BASILIXIMAB; CORTICOSTEROID; CYCLOSPORIN A; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOSE CALCULATION; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; KIDNEY GRAFT; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OSTEOPOROSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT;

ADRENAL CORTEX HORMONES; ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY CARE; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; FEMALE; GRAFT REJECTION; HISTOCOMPATIBILITY TESTING; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSION; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; RECOMBINANT FUSION PROTEINS; REOPERATION; SWITZERLAND; TREATMENT FAILURE;

EID: 77952885326     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181d75952     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. van Gelder T, Shaw LM. The rationale for and limitations of therapeutic drug monitoring for mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Transplantation 2005; 80: S244.
2. Cattaneo D, Gaspari F, Ferrari S, et al. Pharmacokinetics help optimizing mycophenolate mofetil dosing in kidney transplant patients. Clin Transplant 2001; 15: 402.
3. Filler G, Zimmering M, Mai I. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil are influenced by concomitant immunosuppression. Pediatr Nephrol 2000; 14: 100
4. Pisupati J, Jain A, Burckart G, et al. Intraindividual and interindividual variations in the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in liver transplant patients. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45: 34.
5. Morris RG. Immunosuppressant drug monitoring: Is the lab oratory meeting clinical expectations? Ann Pharmacother 2005; 39: 119.
6. Arns W, Cibrik DM, Walker RG, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in solid organ transplant patients treated with myco-phenolate mofetil: Review of the literature. Transplantation 2006; 82: 1004.
7. Knight SR, Morris PJ. Does the evidence support the use of mycophe-nolate mofetil therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice? A systematic review. Transplantation 2008; 85: 1675.
8. Oremus M, Zeidler J, Ensom MH, et al. Utility of monitoring myco-phenolic acidin solid organ transplant patients.Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2008; 164: 1.
9. Shaw LM, Holt DW, Oellerich M, et al. Current issues in therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid: Report of a roundtable discussion. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23: 305.
10. van Gelder T, Le Meur Y, Shaw LM, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 2006; 28: 145.
11. Pawinski T, Durlik M, Szlaska I, et al. Comparison of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetic parameters in kidney transplant patients within the first 3 months post-transplant. J Clin Pharm Ther 2006; 31: 27.
12. Willis C, Taylor PJ, Salm P, et al. Evaluation of limited sampling strategies for estimation of 12-hour mycophenolic acid area under the plasma concentration-time curve in adult renal transplant patients. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22: 549.
13. Le Guellec C, Büchler M, Giraudeau B, et al. Simultaneous estimation of cyclosporin and mycophenolic acid areas under the curve in stable renal transplant patients using a limited sampling strategy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 57: 805.
14. Zicheng Y, Xianghui W, Peijun Z, et al. Evaluation of the practicability of limited sampling strategies for the estimation of mycophenolic acid exposure in Chinese adult renal recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2007; 29: 600.
15. Prémaud A,LeMeur Y,Debord J,et al. Maximumaposteriori Bayesian estimation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients at different postgrafting periods. Ther Drug Monit 2005; 27: 354.
16. Prémaud A, Debord J, Rousseau A, et al. A double absorption-phase model adequately describes mycophenolic acid plasma profiles in de novo renal transplant recipients given oral mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44: 837.
17. Le Meur Y, Büchler M, Thierry A, et al. Individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing based on drug exposure significantly improves patient outcomes after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 2496.
18. Balshaw R, Machnicki G, Carreno A, et al. Two-hour post-dose cyclo-sporine levels in renal transplantation in Argentina: A cost effective strategy for reducing acute rejection. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 871.
19. Keown PA, Kiberd B, Balshaw R, et al. An economic model of 2-hour post-dose ciclosporin monitoring in renal transplantation. Pharmaco-economics 2004; 22: 621.
20. 2 monitoring of cyclosporine in stable renal transplant patients results in lower costs and improved renal function. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 1583.
21. Shenoy S, Hardinger KL, Crippin J, et al. A randomized, prospective, pharmacoeconomic trial of Neoral 2-hour postdose concentration monitoring versus tacrolimus trough concentration monitoring in de novo liver transplant recipients. Liver Transplant 2008; 14: 173.
22. Suivi ambulatoire de l'adulte transplanté rénal au-delà 3 mois après transplantation. Haute Autorité de Santé. Available at: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c-629812/suivi- ambulatoire-de-ladulte-transplante-renal-au-dela-de-3-mois-apres- transplantation. Accessed: April 9, 2009.
23. Bulletin Officiel de la République Française, fascicule spécial n° 2004/3 bis. Manuel des Groupes Homogènes de Malades. 9e version de la classification, version 7.9 de la fonction groupage. Volume 2: description détaillée par CDM et GHM. Mise à jour au 1er janvier 2004. Available at: http://www.bdsp.ehesp.fr/Base/Data/306226. htm. Accessed April 9, 2009.
24. Van Gelder T, Silva HT, de Fijter JW, et al. Comparing mycophenolate mofetil regimens for de novo renal transplant recipients: The fixed-dose concentration-contrlled trial. Transplantation 2008; 27: 1043.
25. Prémaud A, Rousseau A, Le Meur Y, et al. Feasibility of, and critical paths for mycophenolate mofetil Bayesian dose adjustment: Pharmacological re-appraisal of a concentration-controlled versus fixed-dose trial in renal transplant recipients. Pharmacol Res 2010; 61: 167.
26. Lazzaro C, McKechnie T, McKenna M. Tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in renal transplantation in Italy: Cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analyses. J Nephrol 2002; 15: 580.
27. Annemans L, Lemkuhl G, Tenderich U, et al. Economic evaluation of everolimus and mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in de novo heart transplantation. Transplant Proc 2007; 39: 3306.
28. Launois R, Vergnenègre A, Garrigues B. [Costs, costs and more costs: Which one should we use?] Bull Cancer 2003; 90: 946; in French.
29. Durand-Zaleski I, Combe C, Lang P. International study of health care organization and financing for end-stage renal disease in France. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2007; 7: 171.
30. Khoury JA, Storch GA, Bohl DL, et al. Prophylactic versus preemptive oral valganciclovir for the management ofcytomegalovirus infection in adult renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 2134.
31. Ensom MH, Davis GA, Cropp CD, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics in the 21st century. Does the evidence support definitive outcomes? Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 34: 265.
32. Touw DJ, Neef C, Thomson AH, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Committee of the International Association for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology. Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring: A systematic review. Ther Drug Monit 2005; 27: 10.
33. Chaix C, Grenier-Sennelier C, Clevenbergh P, et al. Economic evaluation of drug resistance genotyping for the adaptation of treatment in HIV-infected patients in the VIRADAPT study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2000; 24: 227.
34. Young M, Plosker GL. Mycophenolate mofetil. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in solid organ transplantation. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 675.
35. Bonastre J, Chevalier J, Elias D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intraperito-neal chemohyperthermia inthe treatment ofperitoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer. Value Health 2008; 11: 347.