RELATIVE COST OF CADAVERIC VERSUS LIVING DONOR KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION

Solving the organ shortage crisis: the 7th annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons' State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium

The 2007 American Society of Transplant Surgeons' (ASTS) State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium entitled, 'Solving the Organ Shortage Crisis' explored ways to increase the supply of donor organs to meet the challenge of increasing waiting lists and deaths while awaiting transplantation. While the increasing use of organs previously considered marginal, such as those from expanded criteria donors (ECD) or donors after cardiac death (DCD) has increased the number of transplants from deceased donors, these transplants are often associated with inferior outcomes and higher costs. The need remains for innovative ways to increase both deceased and living donor transplants. In addition to increasing ECD and DCD utilization, increasing use of deceased donors with certain types of infections such as Hepatitis B and C, and increasing use of living donor liver, lung and intestinal transplants may also augment the organ supply. The extent by which donors may be offered incentives for donation, and the practical, ethical and legal implications of compensating organ donors were also debated. The expanded use of nonstandard organs raises potential ethical considerations about appropriate recipient selection, informed consent and concerns that the current regulatory environment discourages and penalizes these efforts.

Mycophenolate mofetil: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in solid organ transplantation

Most pharmacoeconomic studies of mycophenolate mofetil have focused on its use as part of maintenance immunosuppression for renal transplantation, involving short-term (3 to 12 months) time frames. In general, mycophenolate mofetil reduced the treatment costs for rejection episodes and graft failure which offset its higher drug acquisition cost compared with azathioprine. Several cost analyses have been modelled on the large multicentre trials of adult renal transplant recipients. The use of mycophenolate mofetil was associated with either cost savings or no additional costs after 6 or 12 months in French, US and Canadian analyses of triple or quadruple immunosuppressant therapy. A further cost analysis utilising a registry database of renal transplant recipients in the US found mycophenolate mofetil to be cost saving compared with azathioprine after 6.4 years when evaluating costs due to graft loss only. Of the limited cost-effectiveness analyses with the drug, one US study modelled the 1- and 10-year cost effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil and various other immunosuppressants used in combined regimens. Long-term use of mycophenolate mofetil was less cost effective than other regimens, but the use of long-term mycophenolate mofetil in high-risk patients was shown to be a relatively cost-effective strategy. In another US analysis comparing mycophenolate mofetil with azathioprine as part of quadruple therapy, mycophenolate mofetil was associated with slightly lower costs during the first year after renal transplantation as well as improved clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacoeconomic studies support the use of mycophenolate mofetil as part of immunosuppressant therapy in renal transplantation, at least in the short term. Although the cost effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil in the long term is less clear, limited pharmacoeconomic data available appear promising. Among issues to be examined in future economic analyses in renal transplantation are the calcineurin-sparing potential of mycophenolate mofetil and the feasibility of using more efficient mycophenolate mofetil dosage regimens when using the drug on a long-term basis. Additional pharmacoeconomic analyses of mycophenolate mofetil are also needed in other types of solid organ transplantation.