Abstract

Objective

Therapies for end-stage renal disease improve quality of life, and survival. In Mexico, clinicians often must choose between different therapies without the availability of comparative outcomes evaluation. The present study evaluates the comparative cost-utility of sirolimus (SIR) versus tacrolimus (TAC) for the primary prevention of graft rejection in renal transplant recipients in Mexico.

Methods

We used modeling techniques to estimate the cost-effectiveness of SIR versus TAC to prevent graft rejection in patients with end-stage renal disease in the Mexican setting. The model estimates the cost of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) per patient. We applied a 20-year horizon (1-year Markov cycles). Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of cost per QALY. All costs are presented in 2011 US dollars. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results

The total cost for the SIR treatment arm over the 20-year duration of the model is estimated to be $136,778. This compares with $142,624 for the TAC treatment arm, resulting in an incremental cost of SIR compared with that of TAC of−$5,846. Over 20 years, SIR was estimated to have 8.18 QALYs compared with 7.33 QALYs for TAC. The resulting incremental utility of SIR compared with that of TAC is 0.84 QALY gained. SIR is estimated to be both less costly and more effective than TAC, indicating that it is the dominant strategy. Notably, results suggest that SIR has a 78% probability of being dominant over the TAC strategy and a 100% probability of having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at or below $10,064 (1 GDP) per QALY.

Conclusions

These analyses suggest that in the Mexican setting, the use of SIR in place of TAC for the prevention of graft rejection in this population is likely to be cost saving.