Cost-effectiveness of once-daily vs twice-daily tacrolimus among Hispanic and Black kidney transplant recipients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tacrolimus is a first-line immunosuppressive therapy to prevent rejection and graft failure in kidney transplant recipients. Once-daily extended-release tacrolimus tablets (LCPT) have been shown to be efficacious, particularly for Hispanic and Black patient subpopulations who are rapid metabolizers, but is more costly than twice-daily immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LCPT during the first year of treatment vs IR-Tac in kidney transplant recipients who are Hispanic or Black. METHODS: A decision analytic model from a US payer perspective was developed using (1) subgroup outcomes data pooled from two phase 3 clinical trials that compared LCPT and IR-Tac, and (2) direct costs from real-world data sources (ie, costs of LCPT and IR-Tac treatments, biopsy-proven acute rejection, treatment-related serious adverse events [SAEs], graft failure, and consequent dialysis). The primary outcome was cost per successfully treated patient, defined as having a functioning graft after 1 year and without treatment-related SAEs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses established distributions for cost and outcomes estimates, and a series of one-way sensitivity analyses identified parameters that had the most effect on results. RESULTS: Total overall cost for the Hispanic group was $14,765 for LCPT and $12,416 for IR-Tac, and total cost in the Black group was $16,626 for LCPT and $9,871 for IR-Tac. Total overall effectiveness of LCPT and IR-Tac was 88.32% and 84.75% in the Hispanic group and 93.24% and 85.78% in the Black group, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for using LCPT over IR-Tac during the first year of treatment in the Hispanic group was $65,643 per additional successfully treated patient. The ICER for the Black group was $90,458. The single parameter having the most impact on results in both groups was the probability of a treatment-related SAE in IR-Tac, which accounted for 49% of variation in results in the Hispanic group and 46% in the Black group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall results for both groups show that LCPT is incrementally more costly and more effective compared with IR-Tac, indicating a trade-off scenario. LCPT is a cost-effective strategy if a decision makers' willingness to pay for 1 additional successfully treated patient exceeds the ICER and must be weighed against the costs of graft loss, continuing dialysis, and potential retransplant. This study provides a foundation for further research to update and expand inputs as more data become available to improve real-world relevance and decision making. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which provided clinical trial file data and nonbinding feedback on the model structure, data interpretation, clinical expertise, manuscript review, and areas of publication interest (ie, managed care). Hurwitz, Grizzle, Villa Zapata, and Malone received grant funding from Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., through University of Arizona to conduct research and analysis for this study. Tyler is employed by Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Some of the data reported and used in this research were available from the US Renal Data System, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utility Project. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the US government.