Donor Kidney Quality and Transplant Outcome: An Economic Evaluation of Contemporary Practice

Sameera Senanayake, Nicholas Graves, Helen Healy, Keshwar Baboolal, Adrian Barnett, Matthew P Sypek, Sanjeewa Kularatna, Sameera Senanayake, Nicholas Graves, Helen Healy, Keshwar Baboolal, Adrian Barnett, Matthew P Sypek, Sanjeewa Kularatna

Abstract

Objectives: The study had two main aims. First, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of transplanting deceased donor kidneys of differing quality levels based on the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI). Second, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of remaining on the waiting list until a high-quality kidney becomes available compared to transplanting a lower-quality kidney.

Methods: A decision analytic model to estimate cost-effectiveness was developed using a Markov process. Separate models were developed for 4 separate KDPI bands, with higher values indicating lower quality. Models were simulated in 1-year cycles for a 20-year time horizon, with transitions through distinct health states relevant to the kidney recipient from the healthcare payer's perspective. Weibull regression was used to calculate the time-dependent transition probabilities in the base analysis. The impact uncertainty arising in model parameters was included by probabilistic sensitivity analysis using the Monte Carlo simulation method. Willingness to pay was considered as Australian $28 000.

Results: Transplanting a kidney of any quality is cost-effective compared to remaining on a waitlist. Transplanting a lower KDPI kidney is cost-effective compared to a higher KDPI kidney. Transplanting lower KDPI kidneys to younger patients and higher KDPI kidneys to older patients is also cost-effective. Depending on dialysis in hopes of receiving a lower KDPI kidney is not a cost-effective strategy for any age group.

Conclusion: Efforts should be made by the health systems to reduce the discard rates of low-quality kidneys with the view of increasing the transplant rates.

Keywords: cost utility analysis; donor quality QALY; transplant.

Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir