title: Budget impact of switching from an immediate-release to a prolonged-release formulation of tacrolimus in renal transplant recipients in the UK based on differences in adherence.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Advagraf is a once-daily prolonged-release formulation of tacrolimus with proven noninferiority to Prograf, a twice-daily immediate-release formulation of tacroli-mus, in biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft survival and patient survival in renal transplant recipients. Advagraf is associated with improved adherence compared with Prograf, which may ultimately improve long-term outcomes. The present study assessed the budget impact of switching patients from Prograf to Advagraf in the UK.
  
  
  METHODS
  A budget-impact model was constructed based on published data on acute rejection, graft failure, and mortality in the UK setting. Patients were assumed to convert from Prograf to Advagraf on a 1:1 milligram:milligram basis. In a study comparing the adherence rates between once-daily versus twice-daily formulations of tacrolimus, the proportion of patients taking the prescribed number of daily doses was 88.2% in Advagraf patients and 78.8% in Prograf patients. The model applied a relative risk of graft failure of 3.47 to nonadherent patients based on data from a 2004 meta-analysis (based on graft-failure rates of 1.3%-40.0% in adherent patients, compared with 6.1%-100% in nonadherent patients). Cost data were taken from the March 2013 British National Formulary and 2012-2013 National Health Service tariff information. The analysis was performed over a 5-year time horizon and future costs were not discounted, in line with International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research guidelines.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Over a 5-year time horizon, the mean cost per patient (including tacrolimus, concomitant immunosuppressive medications, dialysis after graft failure, and treatment for acute rejection) was £29,328 (standard deviation [SD] £2,844) for Advagraf versus £33,061 (SD £3,178) for Prograf. The total cost saving of £3,733 (SD £530) was driven primarily by reduced dialysis costs arising from the lower incidence of graft failure (21.6% with Prograf versus 18.3% with Advagraf) in the larger proportion of adherent patients in the Advagraf arm. In a hypothetical transplant centre of 100 kidney-transplant recipients, this would result in cost savings approaching £375,000 over 5 years.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Conversion of renal transplant recipients from Prograf to Advagraf was associated with lower pharmacy and dialysis costs, with the reduction in dialysis costs being driven by improved adherence to Advagraf regimen and the consequent improvement in graft survival.
authors.affiliation: Astellas Pharma Europe, Chertsey, UK.
authors.forename: Gorden
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Muduma
authors.affiliation: Astellas Pharma Europe, Chertsey, UK.
authors.forename: Isaac
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Odeyemi
authors.affiliation: Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Jayne
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Smith-Palmer
authors.affiliation: Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Richard F
authors.initials: RF
authors.lastname: Pollock
keywords: Great Britain; costs and cost analysis; patient adherence; tacrolimus
references.citation: Am J Manag Care. 2009 Jun 01;15(6):e22-33
references.pmid: 19514806
references.citation: J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005 Jun;16(6):1839-48
references.pmid: 15800121
references.citation: Clin Ther. 2001 Aug;23(8):1296-310
references.pmid: 11558866
references.citation: Transplantation. 2013 Jan 27;95(2):333-40
references.pmid: 23263559
references.citation: Transplantation. 2010 May 15;89(9):1095-102
references.pmid: 20110854
references.citation: Ann Behav Med. 2012 Aug;44(1):85-93
references.pmid: 22454221
references.citation: Transplantation. 2007 Apr 15;83(7):858-73
references.pmid: 17460556
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(1):67-79
references.pmid: 16445304
references.citation: J Transplant. 2012;2012:193724
references.pmid: 22577514
references.citation: Value Health. 2007 Sep-Oct;10(5):336-47
references.pmid: 17888098
references.citation: Transplantation. 2004 Mar 15;77(5):769-76
references.pmid: 15021846
references.citation: Pediatr Transplant. 2010 Aug;14(5):603-13
references.pmid: 20214741
references.citation: Am J Transplant. 2012 May;12(5):1157-67
references.pmid: 22429309
references.citation: Am J Transplant. 2010 Dec;10(12):2632-43
references.pmid: 20840480
references.citation: Am J Transplant. 2012 Feb;12(2):388-99
references.pmid: 22081892
references.citation: Am J Transplant. 2011 Sep;11(9):1965-71
references.pmid: 21668633
references.citation: Clin Transplant. 2012 May-Jun;26(3):E293-9
references.pmid: 22686953
references.citation: Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43(10):623-53
references.pmid: 15244495
references.citation: J Med Econ. 2011;14(3):357-66
references.pmid: 21563878
references.citation: Am J Transplant. 2009 Nov;9(11):2597-606
references.pmid: 19843035
references.citation: JAMA. 1998 Nov 18;280(19):1690-1
references.pmid: 9832001
references.citation: Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014 Jan 09;8:73-81
references.pmid: 24470756
references.citation: Clin Transplant. 2014 Jan;28(1):96-104
references.pmid: 24329814