These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Everolimus versus Mycophenolate in Kidney Transplant Recipients Receiving No Pharmacological Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus Infection: A Short-Term Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (12 Months).
    Author: Felipe C, Tedesco-Silva H, Ferreira Brigido A, Bessa A, Ruppel P, Hiramoto L, de Paula M, Cristelli M, Stopa S, Mansur J, Viana L, Fahham L, Pepe C, Medina-Pestana J.
    Journal: Value Health Reg Issues; 2017 Dec; 14():108-115. PubMed ID: 29254534.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Modern immunosuppressive regimens, although associated with improved 1-year graft survival, are associated with adverse effects, including opportunistic infections, diabetes mellitus after transplantation, cardiovascular complications, and de novo malignancies. OBJECTIVES: To determine the short-term (12 months) cost-effectiveness of everolimus (EVR) versus mycophenolate sodium (MPS) in kidney transplant recipients receiving induction therapy, tacrolimus, prednisone, and no prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection. METHODS: A Markov state transition model was designed. Data from a single-center prospective trial were used along with data from the center's medical bills database. The target population comprised adults with low immunological risk submitted to first ABO-compatible transplantation with kidneys recovered from living or deceased donors. The time horizon was 12 months. The interventions included tacrolimus and prednisone plus a single 3-mg/kg dose of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and EVR or basiliximab (BAS) and EVR or BAS and MPS. The clinical outcomes considered for this analysis were cytomegalovirus infection/disease, acute rejection, graft dysfunction, surgical complications, graft loss, and life-years gained. RESULTS: ATG/EVR was cost-saving compared with BAS/MPS on all evaluated outcomes; BAS/EVR outperformed BAS/MPS on most of the evaluated outcomes. Results were confirmed by sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MPS, EVR is an alternative immunosuppressive agent that is able to provide resource-saving to the health care provider with effectiveness gains for the patient.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]