Cost-effectiveness of cyclophosphamide and non-cyclophosphamide in the induction therapy of Malaysian lupus nephritis patients

Abstract

Background There is a paradigm shift in the induction therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). Apart from cyclophosphamide (CYC), mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitors have emerged as an alternative option of treatment. Objective We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) per year, adverse events and renal damage at 24 months between CYC and non-CYC agents (calcineurin inhibitors or mycophenolate) as induction treatment among proliferative lupus nephritis (LN) patients. Methods This was a retrospective and non-controlled study involving biopsy-proven proliferative LN patients (class III or IV with or without V) in the clinic registry from 2017 to 2019. Their medical records were reviewed to determine the date and type of induction, treatment effectiveness, adverse events and renal damage at 24 months. The total cost of treatment included capital cost (building, furniture and equipment) and recurrent cost (emolument, supply/drug, lab investigations, administrative cost and utilities). Treatment effectiveness was defined as renal remission (partial or complete) at 6 months without relapse up to 24 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was expressed as cost per remission per year in Malaysian Ringgit (MYR). Results There were a total of 95 inductions with CYC and 27 with non-CYC in 94 LN patients. There was no significant difference in the total mean cost per patient/year between CYC (MYR 18460.26 ± 6500.76) compared to non-CYC (MYR 19302.10 ± 6778.22), p = 0.569. The CEA for CYC was MYR 20,632.06 (GBP 3,538.78) while non-CYC was MYR 20,846.27 (GBP 3,575.52) and mean difference MYR 214.21 (GBP 37.44). There was significantly higher capital cost, consumables, utility, maintenance, administration ( p < 0.001) and lab investigations ( p = 0.046) in the CYC arm. There was a trend of a higher infection requiring outpatient antibiotic treatment in CYC group ( p = 0.05), but similar renal damage outcome with the non-CYC group. Conclusion: For treatment of proliferative LN, there was no significant difference in the CEA and renal damage between CYC and non-CYC induction treatment. There was a trend of a higher rate of infections in the CYC group. Hence, the decision to treat patient with CYC or MMF should be tailored to individual patients, by considering the risk of infection in a particular patient.