Title
Cost analysis in favor of a combined approach for cytomegalovirus after kidney transplantation : a single-center experience Cost analysis in favor of a combined approach for cytomegalovirus after kidney transplantation : a single-center experience
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Publication type
article
Publication
Copenhagen ,
Subject
Human medicine
Source (journal)
Transplant infectious disease. - Copenhagen
Volume/pages
15(2013) :1 , p. 70-78
ISSN
1398-2273
ISI
000314651600019
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
Background. In kidney transplant recipients, cytomegalovirus (CMV) can cause significant morbidity, mortality, and costs, which can be prevented by universal antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy. Methods. With the aim to improve our understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these interventions, we documented resource use for 101 consecutive kidney transplant recipients in our center receiving preemptive therapy and estimated resource use for 2 alternative scenarios. Results. At 100 days after transplantation, the mean total costs of our preemptive strategy including monitoring and treatment with intravenous ganciclovir was (sic)2545 per patient. At (sic)4853 per patient, these costs were highest for the CMV-positive donor/CMV-negative recipient (D+/R-) patient subgroup (n = 28), who frequently require recurrent treatment. A treatment scenario with valganciclovir prophylaxis for D+/R- and R+ patients, in which we ignored late-onset disease after discontinuation of prophylaxis, resulted in an estimated cost of (sic)1892 per patient. A combined approach using valganciclovir prophylaxis in the D+/R- group and a preemptive strategy in the R+ groups would result in the lowest mean and median costs per patient ((sic)1701). Conclusion. Our study suggests that a combined approach, using valganciclovir prophylaxis in D+/R- patients and preemptive treatment in R+ patients, may result in the lowest cost. This approach seems reasonable as it restricts expensive prophylactic drug therapy to those who would benefit the most, whereas it limits the risk for drug toxicity and late-onset disease in those at lower risk for CMV.
E-info
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/iruaauth/ca83f6/8e05028.pdf
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000314651600019&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000314651600019&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000314651600019&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
Handle