Local Expansion of Donation After Circulatory Death Kidney Transplant Activity Improves Waitlisted Outcomes and Addresses Inequities of Access to Transplantation

In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, but marked regional variation persists. We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted outcomes for a single center. Between 2002–2003 and 2011–2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney‐only transplants were performed at the Cambridge Transplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01). Compared with U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days; p < 0.0001), and our center had higher transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths. This was most apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years), whereas younger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants. Death‐censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger and older recipients, although transplantation conferred a survival benefit from listing for only younger recipients. Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcomes for younger patients and addresses inequity of access to transplantation for older recipients.     

The cost-effectiveness of increasing kidney transplantation and home-based dialysis

Background:   Renal replacement therapy (RRT) consumes sizable proportions of health budgets internationally, but there is considerable variability in choice of RRT modality among and within countries with major implications for health outcomes and costs. We aimed to quantify these implications for increasing kidney transplantation and improving the rate of home-based dialysis.
Methods:   A multiple cohort Markov model was used to assess costs and health outcomes of RRT for new end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients in Australia for 2005–2010, using a health-care funder perspective. Patient characteristics and current practice patterns were based on the ANZDATA Registry. Two proposed changes were modelled: (i) increasing kidney transplants by between 10% and 50% by 2010; and (ii) increasing home haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) to the highest rates observed among Australian centres. We assessed costs (Australian dollars), survival and quality-adjusted survival, and cost-effectiveness.
Results:   The number of new ESKD patients in 2010 was estimated to be 2700, with annual RRT costs of about $A700 million; cumulative costs (2005–2010) were $A5 billion. Increasing transplants by 10–50% saves between $A5.8 and $A26.2 million, and increases quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 130–658 QALYs. Switching new patients from hospital HD to (i) home HD saves $A46.6 million by 2010; or (ii) PD saves $A122.1 million.
Conclusions:   These clinical practice changes reduce costs, improve patient quality of life and, in the case of transplantation, increase survival. Planning for RRT services should incorporate efforts to maximize rates of transplantation and to encourage home-based over hospital-based dialysis to optimize cost-effectiveness in RRT service delivery.     

The impact of home nocturnal hemodialysis on end-stage renal disease therapies: a decision analysis

Home nocturnal hemodialysis (HNHD) is cost-effective relative to in-center hemodialysis (IHD) in short-run analyses. The effect in long-run analyses, when technique failures, declining benefits, delayed training, transplantation and death are considered, is unknown. We used decision analysis techniques to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of HNHD and IHD, projecting future costs and health effects over a lifetime with end-stage renal disease. We developed a Markov state-transition model comparing two strategies: only IHD or starting on IHD and subsequently transferring to HNHD. The model incorporates transplantation. In the base case, half the population was eligible for transplantation, with (1/3) of grafts from live donors. The time to transplant was 0.75 years for live and 5 years for deceased donor transplants. The delay before initiation of HNHD was 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Model parameters were derived from a literature review. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations. The HNHD strategy was associated with a quality-adjusted survival estimate of 5.79 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with lifetime costs of $538 094. The values for IHD were 5.31 QALYs and $543 602, respectively. Thus, HNHD is cost saving while improving quality of life. The incremental cost-utility ratio was consistently less than $50 000 per QALY in sensitivity and Monte Carlo analyses. Important determinants of cost-effectiveness were transplantation time and whether benefits declined over time. Our model suggests that HNHD improves quality-adjusted survival over IHD at an economically attractive cost-effectiveness ratio.     

University of Modena Experience With Liver Grafts From Donation After Circulatory Death: What Really Matters in Organ Selection?

IntroductionThe use of grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is an important additional source to implement within the donor pool. We herein report the outcomes of our early experience with DCD grafts for liver transplantation (LT).MethodsTen patients successfully underwent LT with grafts from DCD donors between August 2017 and January 2019 at the Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit of University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. All donors underwent normothermic regional perfusion after death declaration and, after the procurement, all the suitable grafts underwent ex situ hypothermic perfusion prior to transplantation.ResultsMean postoperative hospital stay after transplant was 12.7 days (range, 5-26), and in 5 cases we placed a biliary drainage (Kehr tube) during surgery. Primary graft nonfunction did not occur after LT in this cohort, although, we registered one case of biliary anastomosis stricture that was managed endoscopically by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. All patients are alive and none required retransplantation.ConclusionsIn our experience with controlled DCD donors, the demonstration of: (1) a negative trend of lactate during normothermic regional perfusion; (2) an aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase level lower than 2000 mU/dL; and (3) less than 1 hour of functional warm ischemia time along with no signs of microscopic or macroscopic ischemia of the grafts, are related to positive outcomes in the first year after transplant. A DCD risk score based on Italian population characteristics and regulations on death observation may improve donor-recipient match and avoid futile transplants.     

Comparative effectiveness of donation after cardiac death versus donation after brain death liver transplantation: Recognizing who can benefit

Due to organ scarcity and wait-list mortality, transplantation of donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers has increased. However, the group of patients benefiting from DCD liver transplantation is unknown. We studied the comparative effectiveness of DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation. A Markov model was constructed to compare undergoing DCD transplantation with remaining on the wait-list until death or DBD liver transplantation. Differences in life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs according to candidate Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score were considered. A separate model for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with and without MELD exception points was constructed. For patients with a MELD score <15, DCD transplantation resulted in greater costs and reduced effectiveness. Patients with a MELD score of 15 to 20 experienced an improvement in effectiveness (0.07 QALYs) with DCD liver transplantation, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was >$2,000,000/QALY. Patients with MELD scores of 21 to 30 (0.25 QALYs) and >30 (0.83 QALYs) also benefited from DCD transplantation with ICERs of $478,222/QALY and $120,144/QALY, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stable results for MELD scores <15 and >20, but the preferred strategy for the MELD 15 to 20 category was uncertain. DCD transplantation was associated with increased costs and reduced survival for HCC patients with exception points but led to improved survival (0.26 QALYs) at a cost of $392,067/QALY for patients without exception points. In conclusion, DCD liver transplantation results in inferior survival for patients with a MELD score <15 and HCC patients receiving MELD exception points, but provides a survival benefit to patients with a MELD score >20 and to HCC patients without MELD exception points.     

The routine use of high-resolution immunological screening of recipients of primary deceased donor kidney allografts is cost-effective

BACKGROUND: The economic and health benefits of kidney transplantation are dependent on the length of allograft survival. High-resolution immunological screening can identify recipients at increased risk of early graft loss caused by acute rejection, but the use of these tests increases screening costs before transplantation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine use of high-resolution flow-cytometry cross-matching and solid-phase screening for all recipients of primary deceased donor kidney transplants. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate costs and effects of two different clinical strategies on a simulated cohort of 1,000 transplant recipients: serological screening (SS) only and flow screening (FS) only. Outcomes measures were total cost of patient care over 25 years, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and transplant life expectancy. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, FS was associated with an average gain of 0.08 life years, 0.25 transplant life years, and 0.08 quality-adjusted life years per patient. SS was associated with a higher cost of CND$6,397 per patient, mostly because of increased use of dialysis in patients who suffered early graft loss under the SS strategy. The results were robust to uncertainty in the majority of variables, and a strategy using FS was cost-effective except under the unlikely scenario where the false-negative rate for SS was 相似文献   

Waiting time on dialysis as the strongest modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes: a paired donor kidney analysis

BACKGROUND: Waiting time on dialysis has been shown to be associated with worse outcomes after living and cadaveric transplantation. To validate and quantify end-stage renal disease (ESRD) time as an independent risk factor for kidney transplantation, we compared the outcome of paired donor kidneys, destined to patients who had ESRD more than 2 years compared to patients who had ESRD less than 6 months. METHODS: We analyzed data available from the U.S. Renal Data System database between 1988 and 1998 by Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to quantify the effect of ESRD time on paired cadaveric kidneys and on all cadaveric kidneys compared to living-donated kidneys. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year unadjusted graft survival rates were significantly worse in paired kidney recipients who had undergone more than 24 months of dialysis (58% and 29%, respectively) compared to paired kidney recipients who had undergone less than 6 months of dialysis (78% and 63%, respectively; P<0.001 each). Ten-year overall adjusted graft survival for cadaveric transplants was 69% for preemptive transplants versus 39% for transplants after 24 months on dialysis. For living transplants, 10-year overall adjusted graft survival was 75% for preemptive transplants versus 49% for transplants after 24 month on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: ESRD time is arguably the strongest independent modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes. Part of the advantage of living-donor versus cadaveric-donor transplantation may be explained by waiting time. This effect is dominant enough that a cadaveric renal transplant recipient with an ESRD time less than 6 months has the equivalent graft survival of living donor transplant recipients who wait on dialysis for more than 2 years.     

Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes

Singh RP, Farney AC, Rogers J, Zuckerman J, Reeves‐Daniel A, Hartmann E, Iskandar S, Adams P, Stratta RJ. Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 255–264. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Introduction: Delayed graft function (DGF) is more common in recipients of kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors compared to donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Methods: Single‐center retrospective study to evaluate the impact of DGF on controlled (Maastricht category III) DCD donor kidney transplant outcomes. Results: From 10/01 to 6/08, 578 adult deceased donor kidney transplants were performed including 70 (12%) from DCD and 508 (88%) from DBD donors. Mean follow‐up was 36 months. DCD donor kidney transplants had significantly greater rates of DGF (57% DCD vs. 21% DBD, p < 0.0001)) and acute rejection (29% DCD vs. 16% DBD, p = 0.018) compared to DBD donor kidney transplants, but patient and graft survival rates were similar. DBD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 109) had significantly greater rates of death‐censored graft loss (12.5% DCD vs. 31% DBD), primary non‐function (0 DCD vs. 10% DBD) and higher 2 year mean serum creatinine levels (1.4 DCD vs. 2.7 mg/dL DBD) compared to DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 40, all p < 0.04). On univariate analysis, the presence of acute rejection and older donor age were the only significant risk factors for death‐censored graft loss in DCD donor kidney transplants, whereas DGF was not a risk factor. Conclusion: Despite higher rates of DGF and acute rejection in DCD donor kidney transplants, subsequent outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF are better than in DBD donor kidney transplants experiencing DGF, and similar to outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants without DGF.     

Donation after cardiac death liver transplantation is associated with increased risk of end‐stage renal disease

Limited organ supply has led to greater use of liver allografts with higher donor risk indices (DRI) and/or donated after cardiac death (DCD). DCD status is associated with acute kidney injury after liver transplantation; however, less is known about the association between donor quality and end‐stage renal disease (ESRD). Using SRTR data, we assembled a cohort of liver transplant recipients from 2/2002 to 12/2010. We fit multivariable Cox regression models for ESRD. Model 1 included total DRI; model 2 included components of DRI, including DCD, as separate variables. Forty thousand four hundred and sixty‐three liver transplant recipients were included. Median DRI was 1.40 (IQR 1.14, 1.72); 1822 (5%) received DCD livers. During median follow‐up of 3.93 years, ESRD occurred in 2008 (5%) and death in 11 075 (27%) subjects. There was a stepwise increase in ESRD risk with higher DRI (DRI ≥1.14 and <1.40: HR 1.17, P = 0.06; DRI ≥1.40 and <1.72: HR 1.29, P = 0.003; DRI ≥1.72: HR 1.39, P < 0.001, compared with DRI <1.14). Adjusting for DRI components separately, DCD status was most strongly associated with ESRD (HR 1.40, P = 0.008). Higher DRI is associated with ESRD after liver transplantation, driven in part by DCD status. Donor quality is an important predictor of long‐term renal outcomes in liver transplant recipients.     

Outcomes of Pancreas Transplantation in the United States Using Cardiac-Death Donors

Organs donated after cardiac death (DCD) are used to expand the donor pool. We analyzed the outcomes in the United States of pancreatic transplantation of organs from DCD donors performed between 1993 and 2003.
We used the OPTN/UNOS Registry to compare outcomes of primary pancreas allografts from DCD donors and donors after brain death (DBD). The primary endpoints were graft failure and patient death. A national survey regarding the use of DCD donors in pancreas transplantation was conducted among the directors of pancreas transplant centers.
Data were obtained on 47 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (SPK) and 10 solitary pancreas transplants from DCD donors and on 2431 SPK and 1607 solitary pancreas transplants from DBD donors. Recipients of a SPK transplants from DCD and DBD donors had equivalent patient and graft survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years. For recipients of SPK transplants, the wait for organs from DCD donors was significantly shorter than that for organs from DBD donors. SPK recipients of organs from DCD donors had longer hospital stays than did recipients of organs from DBD donors. With renal allografts, the incidence of delayed graft function was almost four times higher with organs from DCD donors than with organs from DBD donors.
Selective use of organs from DCD donors is safe for pancreas transplantation.     

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BackgroundDespite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.MethodWe aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.ResultsA total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54–4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.ConclusionPatients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.     

A decision-analytic economic evaluation of valaciclovir prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in renal transplantation

OBJECTIVE: This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of valaciclovir prophylaxis using clinically and economically important health outcomes including graft failure, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: A Markov model was developed using a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of valaciclovir prophylaxis, together with a published epidemiological study and national renal transplant registry data. The model's population was stratified into two risk groups by donor/recipient cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus at transplantation: donor-positive/recipient-negative (D+R-) and recipient-positive (R+) patients. The model estimated costs and health outcomes over a 30-yr period from the perspective of Australian health care providers. RESULTS: The total health care cost was $3619 lower for D+R- patients receiving valaciclovir prophylaxis compared with those not receiving prophylaxis. D+R- patients receiving valaciclovir gained an extra 0.33 yr of life and 0.27 QALYs. R+ patients receiving valaciclovir prophylaxis gained an extra 0.07 yr of life and 0.05 QALYs, with an incremental cost of $914. This equates to $17 127 per QALY gained, which is highly cost-effective compared with other drugs and health interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Valaciclovir for the prophylaxis of CMV disease in renal transplant recipients is a cost-effective intervention, significantly reducing the burden of CMV disease to patients and health care providers.     

An economic evaluation of lung transplantation

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with lung transplantation relative to medical treatment for end-stage lung disease in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Patients on the transplant waiting list were used to represent medical treatment. Four-year national survival data were extrapolated to 15 years by means of parametric techniques. Quality-adjusted life-years were derived by means of utility scores obtained from a cross-section of patients. Resource consumption and costs were based on local and national sources. Costs and benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 6%. RESULTS: Across a 15-year period lung transplantation yielded mean benefits (relative to medical treatment) of 2.1, 3.3, and 3.6 quality-adjusted life-years for single-lung, double-lung, and heart-lung transplantation, respectively. During the same period the mean cost of medical treatment was estimated at $73,564, compared with $176,640, $180,528, and $178,387 for single-lung, double-lung, and heart-lung transplantation, respectively. The costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were $48,241 for single-lung, $32,803 for double-lung, and $29,285 for heart-lung transplantation. Sensitivity analysis found the principal determinants of cost-effectiveness to be quality of life and maintenance costs after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplantation results in survival and quality of life gains but remains expensive, with cost-effectiveness limited by substantial mortality and morbidity and high costs. The cost-effectiveness of lung transplantation can be improved with lowered immunosuppression costs and improvements in quality of life after transplantation.     

Procurement of lungs for transplantation following donation after circulatory death: the Alfred technique

Introduction

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is an evolving method for lung transplantation (LTx) with results comparable to donation after brain death (DBD).

Materials and Methods

DCD lung transplant program requires a systematic approach for an efficient utilization of hospital resources. The surgical techniques have been developed to minimize the ischemic time during lung procurement. We have presented our management protocol and the surgical techniques as used at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

Results

We have transplanted 92 recipients with lungs procured from 91 donors over an 8 year period from May 2006 to July 2014. This accounted for an extra 19% lung transplant operations performed during this time period. Operative mortality was 1% and 8 year survival was 71% in DCD lung recipients.

Conclusions

DCD lung transplantation provides an additional significant pool of lung donors with satisfactory short and long term outcomes.     

Increasing the supply of kidneys for transplantation

Kidney transplantation confers a survival advantage for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) when compared to dialysis and improves the quality of life in a cost-effective manner. Currently there are more than 60,000 patients on the U.S. waiting list for kidney transplantation. In 2004, 16,879 kidney transplants, including 880 simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplants, were performed in this country. Recent strategies for increasing the supply of kidneys hold promise, such as systematic programs designed to improve consent rates for deceased donor organ procurement. Efforts to increase donation after cardiac death (DCD) have been highly successful and now account for more than 5% of all deceased organ donors. Transplantation of kidneys from DCD donors yields 1-year graft and patient survival rates equivalent to kidneys from brain-dead donors. Expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from donors > or = 60 years of age (or donors age 50-59 years with certain comorbidities) confer a survival benefit for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients compared to remaining on dialysis on the waiting list. The number of live donor kidney transplants, both from biologically related and unrelated donors, is increasing. Paired live donor kidney transplants provide yet another transplantation opportunity for ESRD patients with willing but incompatible (by ABO or direct antibody) living donors.     

Cost-effectiveness of using hepatitis C viremic hearts for transplantation into HCV-negative recipients

Outcomes following hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic heart transplantation into HCV-negative recipients with HCV treatment are good. We assessed cost-effectiveness between cohorts of transplant recipients willing and unwilling to receive HCV-viremic hearts. Markov model simulated long-term outcomes among HCV-negative patients on the transplant waitlist. We compared costs (2018 USD) and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) between cohorts willing to accept any heart and those willing to accept only HCV-negative hearts. We assumed 4.9% HCV-viremic donor prevalence. Patients receiving HCV-viremic hearts were treated, assuming $39 600/treatment with 95% cure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared to a $100 000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses included stratification by blood type or region and potential negative consequences of receipt of HCV-viremic hearts. Compared to accepting only HCV-negative hearts, accepting any heart gained 0.14 life-years and 0.11 QALYs, while increasing costs by $9418/patient. Accepting any heart was cost effective (ICER $85 602/QALY gained). Results were robust to all transplant regions and blood types, except type AB. Accepting any heart remained cost effective provided posttransplant mortality and costs among those receiving HCV-viremic hearts were not >7% higher compared to HCV-negative hearts. Willingness to accept HCV-viremic hearts for transplantation into HCV-negative recipients is cost effective and improves clinical outcomes.     

Similar Outcomes of Kidney Transplantations Using Organs From Donors After Cardiac Death and Donors After Brain Death

Background

To increase the number of cadaveric kidney transplants in Japan, it is necessary to proactively use organs from all donors. Since the revision of the Organ Transplant Law, the number of organ donors after cardiac death (DCD) has decreased but the number of organ donors after brain death (DBD) has increased; however, the number of donor organs and awareness of cadaveric transplantation have increased.

Coût de la prise en charge de l’IRCT en France en 2007 et impact potentiel d’une augmentation du recours à la dialyse péritonéale et à la greffe

IntroductionThis study estimates the costs for the national health insurance in 2007 of the patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) according to therapies modalities.MethodData for all patients covered by the general health insurance scheme (77% of the French population) from hospital discharge and outpatients reimbursement databases were linked. ESRD therapies were identified using an algorithm mainly based on discharge diagnosis and immunosuppressive drugs refunds.ResultsExtrapolated to all French population at the end of 2007, 60,900 patients had an ESRD therapy: 30,900 were treated on haemodialysis (HD) (51%), 2600 on peritonea dialysis (DP) (4%) and 27,300 had a kidney transplant (45%). Patients with dialysis therapies had more often complementary universal coverage for low earners. According to the French regions, patient treated with DP were between 0 to 26% and 19 to 57% for those with a transplant. The total refund cost for National Health Insurance was four billion € of which 77% for HD. Annual mean costs per patient were 64 k€ for DP, 89 k€ for HD, 86 k€ for the year of transplantation and 20 k€ for the following years. A 25% increase of DP would allow a decrease of the annual cost of 155 millions € and 900 transplantations more each year during 10 years a decrease of 2.5 billions €ConclusionThe increase of ESRD prevalence and its total cost require patients and professionals information and formation about the less expensive and more autonomous therapies and others alternatives facing the lack of kidney transplants from deceased donors.     

Timing of parathyroidectomy for tertiary hyperparathyroidism with end-stage renal disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BackgroundTertiary hyperparathyroidism associated with end-stage renal disease is characterized by progression from secondary hyperparathyroidism to an autonomous overproduction of parathyroid hormone that leads to adverse health outcomes. Rates of parathyroidectomy (PTX) have decreased with the use of calcimimetics. Optimal timing of PTX in relation to kidney transplant remains controversial. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective strategy for patients with tertiary hyperparathyroidism undergoing kidney transplant.MethodsWe constructed a patient level state transition microsimulation to compare 3 management schemes: cinacalcet with kidney transplant, cinacalcet with PTX before kidney transplant, or cinacalcet with PTX after kidney transplant. Our base case was a 55-year-old on dialysis with tertiary hyperparathyroidism awaiting kidney transplant. Outcomes, including quality-adjusted life years, surgical complications, and mortality, were extracted from the literature, and costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement data.ResultsOur base case analysis demonstrated that cinacalcet with PTX before kidney transplant was dominant, with a lesser cost of $399,287 and greater quality-adjusted life years of 10.3 vs $497,813 for cinacalcet with PTX after kidney transplant (quality-adjusted life years 9.4) and $643,929 for cinacalcet with kidney transplant (quality-adjusted life years 7.4).ConclusionCinacalcet alone with kidney transplant is the least cost-effective strategy. Patients with end-stage renal disease-related tertiary hyperparathyroidism should be referred for PTX, and it is most cost-effective if performed prior to kidney transplant.     

Pediatric Kidney Transplantation in the Developing World: Challenges and Solutions

The prevalence of pediatric RRT and transplantation are low in developing countries, 6–12 and <1 to 5 per million child population (pmcp), respectively. This is due to low GDP/capita of <$10 000, government expenditure on health of <2.6–9% of GDP and paucity of facilities. The reported incidence of pediatric CKD and ESRD is <1.0–8 and 3.4–35 pmcp, respectively. RRT and transplantation are offered mostly in private centers in cities where HD costs $20–100/session and transplants $10 000–20 000. High costs and long distance to centers results in treatment refusal in up to 35% of the cases. In this backdrop 75–85% of children with ESRD are disfranchised from RRT and transplantation. Our center initiated an integrated dialysis–transplant program funded by a community‐government partnership where RRT and transplantation was provided “free of cost” with life long follow‐up and medication. Access to free RRT at doorsteps and transplantation lead to societal acceptance of transplantation as the therapy of choice for ESRD. This enabled us to perform 475 pediatric transplants in 25 years with 1‐ and 5‐year graft survival of 96% and 81%, respectively. Our model shows that pediatric transplantation is possible in developing countries when freely available and accessible to all who need it in the public sector.