Current evidence and insights on single vs. double dose of basiliximab in adult solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Alessio Provenzani, Braidon A Lape, Anneliese M Harp, Victoria Weisbrod, Lavinia Piazza
{"title":"Current evidence and insights on single vs. double dose of basiliximab in adult solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review.","authors":"Alessio Provenzani, Braidon A Lape, Anneliese M Harp, Victoria Weisbrod, Lavinia Piazza","doi":"10.1002/bcp.70151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to assess all available clinical data regarding the use of a single dose of basiliximab in solid organ transplantation compared to the standard double dosage, with particular interest in efficacy, safety and cost-savings.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE and Google Scholar for studies from 2000 to 2024 evaluating single-dose basiliximab in adult transplant recipients. Screening was based on PICOS criteria and MeSH terms. After removing duplicates and applying filters (English, full text, adults, clinical trials and observational studies), three eligible studies were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I-V2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three included studies demonstrated comparable outcomes between single and double-dose basiliximab regimens. Acute cellular rejection ranged from 4.3% to 12.3%, and graft loss occurred in 0% to 2.9% of patients. Patient survival remained elevated across studies, ranging from 95.6% to 100%. Concerning safety, no major differences were reported in overall infection rates or hospital readmissions. Cost-savings favoured the single-dose regimen across all studies. Reported per-patient savings ranged from approximately US$2100 to US$4400, with institutional savings up to US$697864.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A single dose of basiliximab can be a reasonable and cost-saving option, with comparable efficacy and safety, reducing drug expenses. This change in the maintenance regimen suggests that the initial induction therapy can be slightly reduced without affecting efficacy, as supported by the reviewed studies, which is promising for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":9251,"journal":{"name":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bcp.70151","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to assess all available clinical data regarding the use of a single dose of basiliximab in solid organ transplantation compared to the standard double dosage, with particular interest in efficacy, safety and cost-savings.

Methodology: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE and Google Scholar for studies from 2000 to 2024 evaluating single-dose basiliximab in adult transplant recipients. Screening was based on PICOS criteria and MeSH terms. After removing duplicates and applying filters (English, full text, adults, clinical trials and observational studies), three eligible studies were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I-V2 tool.

Results: All three included studies demonstrated comparable outcomes between single and double-dose basiliximab regimens. Acute cellular rejection ranged from 4.3% to 12.3%, and graft loss occurred in 0% to 2.9% of patients. Patient survival remained elevated across studies, ranging from 95.6% to 100%. Concerning safety, no major differences were reported in overall infection rates or hospital readmissions. Cost-savings favoured the single-dose regimen across all studies. Reported per-patient savings ranged from approximately US$2100 to US$4400, with institutional savings up to US$697864.

Conclusion: A single dose of basiliximab can be a reasonable and cost-saving option, with comparable efficacy and safety, reducing drug expenses. This change in the maintenance regimen suggests that the initial induction therapy can be slightly reduced without affecting efficacy, as supported by the reviewed studies, which is promising for future research.

成人实体器官移植受者单剂量与双剂量basiliximab的现有证据和见解:一项系统综述。
目的:本系统综述的目的是评估所有可用的关于在实体器官移植中使用单剂量basiliximab与标准双剂量basiliximab的临床数据,特别关注疗效、安全性和成本节约。方法:根据PRISMA指南,通过检索PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE和谷歌Scholar,对2000年至2024年成人移植受者单剂量basiliximab的研究进行系统评价。筛选基于PICOS标准和MeSH条款。在删除重复和应用筛选(英文、全文、成人、临床试验和观察性研究)后,纳入了三个符合条件的研究。使用ROBINS-I-V2工具评估偏倚风险。结果:所有三项纳入的研究均显示单剂量和双剂量basiliximab方案之间的结果可比较。急性细胞排斥反应范围为4.3%至12.3%,移植丢失发生率为0%至2.9%。在所有研究中,患者生存率仍然升高,从95.6%到100%不等。关于安全性,在总体感染率和再入院率方面没有重大差异。在所有的研究中,单剂量方案有利于节省成本。报告的每位患者节省的费用约为2100美元至4400美元,机构节省的费用高达697864美元。结论:单剂量basiliximab是一种合理且节省成本的选择,具有相当的疗效和安全性,降低了药物费用。维持方案的这种变化表明,正如所审查的研究所支持的那样,初始诱导治疗可以略微减少而不影响疗效,这对未来的研究有希望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
419
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the British Pharmacological Society, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology features papers and reports on all aspects of drug action in humans: review articles, mini review articles, original papers, commentaries, editorials and letters. The Journal enjoys a wide readership, bridging the gap between the medical profession, clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry. It also publishes research on new methods, new drugs and new approaches to treatment. The Journal is recognised as one of the leading publications in its field. It is online only, publishes open access research through its OnlineOpen programme and is published monthly.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信