• POOJA GUPTA Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
  • NANDA GAMAD Senior Resident, Pharmacology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
  • PRAFULL MOHAN Pharmacology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune


Objective: To assess the utility of number needed to treat (NNT) as a tool for cost effectiveness analysis.

Methods: Two monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), used for induction therapy viz basiliximab and daclizumab in renal transplantation, were identified. Pivotal placebo controlled clinical trials, mentioned in the innovator package inserts, were compared and analyzed for acute graft rejection and graft survival at 12 mo. NNT viz-a-vis cost was calculated and compared.

Results: Daclizumab was comparable to basiliximab for acute graft rejection (NNT 10 vs. 9) but better for graft survival (20 vs. 25) at 12 mo, when used along with triple drug regimen (cyclosporine, azathioprine and corticosteroid). However, considering the cost of regimen for these drugs, in terms of NNT, basiliximab was more cost effective (INR 12,52,044 vs. 28,70,400 for acute rejection and INR 34,77,900 vs. 57,40,800 for graft survival). On the other hand, when these MAbs were used along with dual drug regimen (cyclosporine and corticosteroid), daclizumab was more cost effective for graft survival at 12 mo. The higher cost of daclizumab regimen (INR 2,87,040 vs. 1,39,116 for basiliximab) was offset by its substantially lower NNT (20 vs. 58-75 for one extra graft survival at 12 mo).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the utility of NNT in ascertaining relative effectiveness of treatment modalities that would help to formulate appropriate healthcare policies.

Keywords: Number need to treat, Cost effectiveness analysis, Renal transplantation, Daclizumab, Basiliximab, Monoclonal antibodies


Download data is not yet available.


1. World Trade Organization. Promoting access to medical technologies and innovation. Intersections between public health, intellectual property and trade. Switzerland: WTO Publications; 2013. Available from: [Last accessed on 20 Jan 2019]
2. Sengupta A, Joseph RK, Modi S, Syam N. Economic constraints to access to essential medicines in India. Delhi: progressive printers. New Delhi Society for Economic and Social Studies, Centre for Trade and Development; 2008.
3. Planning Commission. Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011-12. Government of India, Planning Commission. New Delhi: Press information bureau; 2013. Available from: [Last accessed on 05 May 2019]
4. Sinha K. India ranks 3rd in region in ‘out of pocket’ med spend. The Times of India; 2012. Available from: [Last accessed on 09 Dec 2018]
5. Holden WL. Benefit-risk analysis a brief review and proposed quantitative approaches. Drug Saf 2003;26:853-62.
6. Abraham G, Reddy YNV, Reddy YNV, Shroff S, Mathew M, Sarvanan S. Evolution of deceased-donor transplantation in India with decline of commercial transplantation: a lesson for developing countries [Meeting Report]. Kidney Int Suppl 2013;3:190-4.
7. Tanriover B, Stone PW, Mohan S, Cohen DJ, Gaston RS. Future of medicare immunosuppressive drug coverage for kidney transplant recipients in the United States. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013;8:1258-66.
8. Gopi B, Sushmitha C, Nikitha KSV, Monika M, Gunda RK, Satyanarayana V, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the management of stroke. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2017;10:127-30.
9. Tabassum R, Hussain SS, Banday M. Evaluation of pharmacoeconomics awareness and its application among postgraduates of a tertiary care hospital: a cross-sectional observational study. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2016;9:145-7.
10. Citrome L. Compelling or irrelevant? Using number needed to treat can help decide. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2008;117:412-9.
11. Garg V, Shen X, Cheng Y, Nawarskas JJ, Raisch DW. Use of number needed to treat in cost-effectiveness analyses. Ann Pharmacother 2013;47:380-7.
12. Zenapax [package insert]. Nutley (NJ): Hoffmann-La Roche Inc; 2005. Available from: drugsatfda_docs/label/2005/103749s5059lbl.pdf. [Last accessed on 20 Jan 2019]
13. Simulect [package insert]. East Hanover (NJ): Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp; 2003. Available from: htm [Last accessed on 14 Dec 2017]
14. Pascual J, Marcean R, Ortunao J. Anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies: basiliximab and daclizumab. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001;16:1756-60.
15. Concise Prescribing Information of: SIMULECT. CIMS; 2014. Available from: [Last accessed on 04 Jan 2018].
16. Brand Index Filter; 2011. Available from: [Last accessed on 04 Jan 2018].
17. Abraham G, John GT, Shroff S, Fernando EM, Reddy YNV. Evolution of renal transplantation in India over the last four decades. NDT Plus 2010;3:203–7.
18. Khanna P. The economics of dialysis in India. Indian J Nephrol 2009;19:1–4.
19. Woodroffe R, Yao GL, Meads C, Bayliss S, Ready A, Raftery J, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer immune-suppressive regimens in renal transplantation: a systematic review and modelling study. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-179.
16 Views | 0 Downloads
How to Cite
GUPTA, P., N. GAMAD, and P. MOHAN. “NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT AS A TOOL FOR COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: A CASE STUDY IN RENAL TRANSPLANTATION”. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol. 12, no. 6, May 2020, pp. 76-80, doi:10.22159/ijpps.2020v12i6.34578.
Original Article(s)