Skip to main content
An economic and quality-of-life assessment of basiliximab vs antithymocyte globulin immunoprophylaxis in renal transplantation NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION Polsky, D., Weinfurt, K. P., Kaplan, B., Kim, J., Fastenau, J., Schulman, K. A. 2001; 16 (5): 1028–33


Immunosuppressive therapy with cyclosporin A has substantially improved clinical outcomes for renal transplantation. Whether basiliximab (a chimeric monoclonal antibody) demonstrates economic and quality-of-life advantages over other induction therapies has not yet been shown.A multi-centre open-label clinical trial was conducted among renal transplant recipients in the US, in which patients were randomized into two induction therapy regimens: basiliximab and antithymocyte globulin (ATG) as part of a quadruple immunosuppressive regimen. Medical resources used and a EuroQol visual analogue scale (VAS) rating of quality of life were collected prospectively for the 135 dosed subjects for a period of 1 year post-treatment. We analysed the differences between treatment groups in 1-year costs and 1-year quality-adjusted survival. We also conducted a post hoc analysis of outcomes among the subgroup of patients identified as high risk.A significant difference was observed in first-year post-treatment costs (basiliximab, $45857; ATG, $54729; difference, $8872 (95% CI, $1169 to $16573). The savings from basiliximab can be attributed to the less expensive induction therapy (basiliximab, $2378; ATG, $8670; difference, $6292 (95% CI, $5165 to $7419)) and other savings during the initial hospitalization totalling $2609. One-year quality-adjusted survival was the same in both groups (basiliximab, 81.5; ATG, 81.1; difference, 0.45 (95% CI, -5.9 to 6.8)). The results of the post hoc analysis of the 48 high-risk patients were comparable to the analysis of all patients.These results demonstrate lower first-year post-treatment costs in renal-transplant recipients receiving basiliximab compared to ATG with no differences in quality-adjusted survival. The results also suggest similar differences among high-risk subjects.

View details for DOI 10.1093/ndt/16.5.1028

View details for Web of Science ID 000168569000025

View details for PubMedID 11328911