Cost-Effectiveness of Antifungal Supplementation of Corneal Cold Storage Media.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of supplementing hypothermic cold storage media (CSM) with antifungal therapy. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). PARTICIPANT: Base case of a patient with Fuch's endothelial dystrophy undergoing a first eye keratoplasty. METHODS: Cost-effective analysis of the base case with corneal tissue stored in CSM or CSM supplemented with antifungal therapy over a 16-year time horizon. Multiple clinical scenarios were considered, including endothelial keratoplasty (EK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK); amphotericin B, voriconazole, caspofungin, and combination therapy; and third-party payer and societal perspectives. The incidences were derived from PubMed literature searches and average wholesale prices of medications; all costs were discounted 3% per annum and adjusted for inflation to 2019 US dollars. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In the reference case, a corneal endothelial graft stored in amphotericin B-supplemented CSM was the most cost-effective approach from a third-party payer and societal perspective. Probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) of the societal model for the EK was robust, with 93.5% being below an arbitrary willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $20 000 per fungal infection averted. Voriconazole, caspofungin, and combination antifungals were less cost-effective than amphotericin B. The main factors influencing the CEA were the incidences of postkeratoplasty fungal infections, potential increases in graft failures, and antifungal costs. For grafts intended for PKs, antifungal supplementation was less cost-effective than for EKs. CONCLUSIONS: Antifungal supplementation with amphotericin B for EK grafts was the most cost-effective approach of the studied antifungals; however, the CEA was sensitive to potential changes in graft failure rates, underlining the importance of long-term safety studies. For full-thickness corneal grafts, antifungal supplementation was less cost-effective.

A randomized study comparing IGL-1 to the University of Wisconsin preservation solution in liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Institut Georges Lopez-1 (IGL-1) is a new preservation solution with lower potassium and lower viscosity than University Wisconsin solution (UW). These characteristics which improve liver preservation lead us to evaluate clinical effects of IGL-1 in a randomized controlled study with UW. MATERIAL/METHODS: From June 2007 to July 2009, after exclusion of partial graft, combined transplantation and fulminant hepatic failure, 140 deceased donor allografts were randomly assigned to IGL-1 (n=48) or UW (n=92) solution. Variables concerning donors and recipients were collected including liver tests (total serum bilirubin, prothrombin time and transaminases) were analyzed until postoperative day 30. Incidences of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), primary non function (PNF) and biliary non anastomotic strictures (NAS) were analyzed. The comparative analysis of costs was realized. RESULTS: Donor and recipients characteristics were similar in both groups. Volume of preservation solution utilized for harvesting was identical. Duration of cold ischemia (472±142 vs. 477±122 min), surgery (427±97 vs. 437±94 min) and proportion of extended criteria donor was similar. Postoperative kinetic and level liver tests were similar. Rate of PNF (2% vs. 4%), early retransplantation (6% vs. 7%), incidence of biliary NAS (2% vs. 3%) and HAT (6% vs. 4%) were similar. Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was similar (5.6 vs. 6.1 days). However costs related to preservation solution for one liver procurement were 992.0 for IGL-1 vs. 1609.0 Euros for UW. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this randomized study shows that the efficacy and safety of IGL-1 are comparable to those of the reference UW with a lower cost.

Comparative analysis of clinical efficacy and cost between University of Wisconsin solution and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare University of Wisconsin solution (Viaspan), the universal standard for organ preservation, with histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution. An analysis of each solution, in reference to clinical trials with specific organs, is presented and assessed to find the efficacy of each in a clinical environment. Also to view each solution from an economical standpoint, and in the end develop an overall understanding of the key similarities and differences between each solution in order to assess appropriate use of each in a clinical setting. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted by using PubMed, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Embase, and other online data bases to find the most recent studies of University of Wisconsin and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solutions. Search terms included University of Wisconsin solution, histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate, preservation solution, cost analysis, biliary complication, and other related subjects. STUDY SELECTION: Previous research was selected from the literature search to provide basic information on the 2 solutions and also to provide clinical examples of each solution and the efficacy of each with specific organs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Information and published articles on the 2 solutions were gathered for descriptive and comparative purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 solutions appear equally effective in organ preservation. Each solution has its own organ-specific qualities, and each has different complications. The studies reviewed here indicate that the differences are minor and thus suggest that the 2 solutions are equally acceptable for clinical use. Of the 2 solutions, histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate costs less than University of Wisconsin solution.

Increased pancreatitis in allografts flushed with histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution: a cautionary tale.

We reviewed pancreas transplantation outcomes after Histidine-Tryptophan-Ketoglutarate (HTK) and University of Wisconsin (UW) preservation solution use between 2001 and 2007 at two transplant centers. While equivalence has been claimed for kidney and liver transplant outcomes after the use of HTK or UW preservation solution, consensus has not been reached on equivalence when flushing pancreata. Others have reported comparable patient and graft survival rates, but found an association between the use of HTK and an increase in the incidence of acute rejection and pancreatitis. In reviewing our experiences, we found in pancreata flushed with HTK a higher incidence of postoperative complications including graft pancreatitis, use of octreotide and a decreased rate of insulin-independence at hospital discharge. These findings prompted us to critically review our centers' experience to determine if there is a basis for suspecting a causal relationship.

PBS140: new competition in the organ preservation market?

PBS140 offers good cold preservation in renal transplantation and now, crucially, has been shown to promote immediate function following warm ischemia. For a new cold preservation solution to compete with UW solution, improved efficacy and lower price may not be enough. Reducing rates of delayed graft function in organs from non-heart-beating and marginal donors might be the key.

Effects of Eurocollins solution as aortic flush for the procurement of human pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Belzer solution is considered to be the best preservation media used for pancreas transplantation; however, its high cost accounts for approximately 14.5% of all resources allocated by the Brazilian government toward each pancreatic transplant. The objective of the present study was to test a reduction of Belzer solution during pancreas harvest, thereby lowering procedural cost. METHODS: The patients received pancreas-kidney transplantations during the period from January 2003 to August 2004. Patients were divided into two groups. Patients assigned to Group A (n=30) received only Belzer solution (2 L through the aorta artery), whereas patients in Group B (n=16) were perfused first with 1 L of Eurocollins solution followed by 1 L of Belzer solution. The two groups were assessed for differences in the following clinical parameters: the need for insulin replacement or antifungal and anticytomegalovirus treatment, pancreatitis, acute cellular rejection, graft vascular thrombosis, fistulas, intra-abdominal collection, graft loss, deaths, pancreatic ischemia time, and average hospitalization time. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in any of the parameters analyzed (P<0.05). The use of Eurocollins solution, followed by Belzer solution during pancreas harvesting, did not result in differences in graft survival or functionality, postsurgical complications, or patient survival and hospitalization time, when compared to the use of Belzer solution alone. CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion with 1 L of Eurocollins solution followed by 1 L of Belzer solution during pancreas harvesting seems to be a simple and efficient alternative for reducing the costs of the harvesting process.

Comparative study on two kidney graft rinsing and preservation solutions in terms of the post-transplantation risk of delayed graft function and cost.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Belzer solution (Viaspan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Brussels, Belgium), which is more expensive than Eurocollins solution, was better at preventing delayed graft function (DGF) and whether it was cost-effective as it could potentially reduce post-transplantation complications. METHOD: The risk of occurrence of complications associated with the use of these two rinsing and preserving solutions was estimated from a survey of 106 patients undergoing renal transplantation between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1998. Both efficacy and adverse outcomes were recorded along with the costs directly associated with the transplantation procedure in the hospital setting: hospitalization, rinsing and preserving solutions, medical and technical interventions and diagnostic tests. RESULTS: For the 45 kidney grafts rinsed and preserved with Eurocollins (strategy S1: n1 = 45) the cost/graft was estimated at 40 euros. With Viaspan (strategy S2: n2 = 61) the corresponding cost/graft was 424 euros. Logistic regression analysis showed that Viaspan was better than Eurocollins solution (ebeta = 0.437; P = 0.05) in preventing DGF. Overall, S2 was less expensive than S1, from the hospital's perspective. The mean difference per patient was 278 euros, which amounts to a saving of 2% of the total cost per renal transplantation. For rinsing and preserving kidney grafts Belzer solution is therefore preferable to Eurocollins solution.