Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background. In kidney transplant recipients with positive serology (R+) for the cytomegalovirus (CMV), 2 strategies are used to prevent infection, whose respective advantages over the other are still debated. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of antiviral prophylaxis against CMV versus preemptive therapy, considering CMV infection–free survival over the first year posttransplantation as the main clinical outcome. Methods. Clinical, laboratory, and economic data were collected from 186 kidney transplant patients CMV (R+) included in the cohort study (85 patients who benefited from CMV prophylaxis and 101 from preemptive therapy). Costs were calculated from the hospital perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ5D form. Using nonparametric bootstrapping, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost utility were estimated (euros) for each case of infection avoided and each QALY gained for 1 y, respectively. Results. Prophylaxis significantly decreased the risk of CMV infection over the first year posttransplantation (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval = 0.12-0.37, P < 0.01). Compared with preemptive therapy, prophylaxis saved financial resources (€1155 per patient) and was more effective (0.42 infection avoided per patient), resulting in an ICER = €2769 per infection avoided. Prophylaxis resulted in a net gain of 0.046 in QALYs per patient and dominated over preemptive therapy with €1422 cost-saving for 1 QALY gained. Conclusions. This study shows that CMV prophylaxis, although considered as a more expensive strategy, is more cost-effective than preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV infections in renal transplant patients. Prophylaxis had a positive effect on quality of life at reasonable costs and resulted in net savings for the hospital.
Villeneuve et al. (Fri,) studied this question.