Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015:2015:917567.
doi: 10.1155/2015/917567. Epub 2015 Oct 27.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Azathioprine Based Regimens for Maintenance Therapy of Proliferative Lupus Nephritis

Affiliations

Cost-Utility Analysis of Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Azathioprine Based Regimens for Maintenance Therapy of Proliferative Lupus Nephritis

Robert Nee et al. Int J Nephrol. 2015.

Abstract

Background/Aims. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) as maintenance therapy for patients with Class III and Class IV lupus nephritis (LN), from a United States (US) perspective. Methods. Using a Markov model, we conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon. The modeled population comprised patients with proliferative LN who received maintenance therapy with MMF (2 gm/day) versus AZA (150 mg/day) for 3 years. Risk estimates of clinical events were based on a Cochrane meta-analysis while costs and utilities were retrieved from other published sources. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), and net monetary benefit. Results. The base-case model showed that, compared with AZA strategy, the ICER for MMF was $2,630,592/QALY at 3 years. Over the patients' lifetime, however, the ICER of MMF compared to AZA was $6,454/QALY. Overall, the ICER results from various sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not alter the conclusions of the model simulation. Conclusions. In the short term, an AZA-based regimen confers greater value than MMF for the maintenance therapy of proliferative LN. From a lifelong perspective, however, MMF is cost-effective compared to AZA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Markov state transition diagram illustrating the health states and transitions for each treatment strategy for the initial 3 years. The lifetime model consists of the initial 3-year period of maintenance therapy followed by a posttreatment phase as shown in (b). (b) Markov state transition diagram illustrating the health states and transitions for each treatment strategy for the posttreatment phase (after 3 years). LN: lupus nephritis; AZA: azathioprine; MMF: mycophenolate mofetil; IV CYC: intravenous cyclophosphamide; ESRD: end stage renal disease.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Tornado diagram of the 3-year base-case model, demonstrating one-way sensitivity analysis of each variable in the model. Each bar represents a range of expected values (EV), expressed as net monetary benefit in US dollars, over plausible estimates for an individual variable. The dotted vertical line indicates the base-case expected value. WTP: willingness-to-pay.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Incremental cost-effectiveness scatter plots of the base-case model. (a) 3 years; (b) 10 years after completing 3-year maintenance therapy; (c) 40 years after completing 3-year maintenance therapy. Each single point represents pairs of incremental cost and effectiveness values from probabilistic sensitivity analyses via second-order Monte Carlo simulation of 1,000 iterations. The ellipsis represents the 95% confidence interval. The dotted diagonal line represents the WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY. AZA: azathioprine; MMF: mycophenolate mofetil; WTP: willingness-to-pay; QALY: quality-adjusted life-years.

References

    1. Slawsky K. A., Fernandes A. W., Fusfeld L., Manzi S., Goss T. F. A structured literature review of the direct costs of adult systemic lupus erythematosus in the US. Arthritis Care & Research. 2011;63(9):1224–1232. doi: 10.1002/acr.20502. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carls G., Li T., Panopalis P., et al. Direct and indirect costs to employers of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with and without nephritis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2009;51(1):66–79. doi: 10.1097/jom.0b013e31818a405a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Glomerulonephritis Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for glomerulonephritis. Kidney International Supplements. 2012;2(2):139–274. doi: 10.1038/kisup.2012.9. - DOI
    1. Hahn B. H., McMahon M. A., Wilkinson A., et al. American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Arthritis Care and Research. 2012;64(6):797–808. doi: 10.1002/acr.21664. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Houssiau F. A., D'Cruz D., Sangle S., et al. Azathioprine versus mycophenolate mofetil for long-term immunosuppression in lupus nephritis: results from the MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2010;69(12):2083–2089. doi: 10.1136/ard.2010.131995. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources