Cost-effectiveness of Accepting Kidneys From Deceased Donors With Common Cancers-A Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: The disparity between the demand for and supply of kidney transplants has resulted in prolonged waiting times for patients with kidney failure. A potential approach to address this shortage is to consider kidneys from donors with a history of common cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. METHODS: We used a patient-level Markov model to evaluate the outcomes of accepting kidneys from deceased donors with a perceived history of breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer characterized by minimal to intermediate transmission risk. Data from the Australian transplant registry were used in this analysis. The study compared the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system between the proposed practice of accepting these donors and the conservative practice of declining them. The model simulated outcomes for 1500 individuals waitlisted for a deceased donor kidney transplant for a 25-y horizon. RESULTS: Under the proposed practice, when an additional 15 donors with minimal to intermediate cancer transmission risk were accepted, QALY gains ranged from 7.32 to 20.12. This translates to an approximate increase of 7 to 20 additional years of perfect health. The shift in practice also led to substantial cost savings, ranging between $1.06 and $2.3 million. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed practice of accepting kidneys from deceased donors with a history of common cancers with minimal to intermediate transmission risk offers a promising solution to bridge the gap between demand and supply. This approach likely results in QALY gains for recipients and significant cost savings for the health system.

Cost-effectiveness of Kidney Transplantation From Donors at Increased Risk of Blood-borne Virus Infection Transmission.

BACKGROUND: Demand for donor kidneys outstrips supply. Using kidneys from selected donors with an increased risk of blood-borne virus (BBV) transmission (hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus [HCV], human immunodeficiency virus) may expand the donor pool, but cost-effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain. METHODS: A Markov model was developed using real-world evidence to compare healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of accepting kidneys from deceased donors with potential increased risk of BBV transmission, because of increased risk behaviors and/or history of HCV, versus declining these kidneys. Model simulations were run over a 20-y time horizon. Parameter uncertainty was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Accepting kidneys from donors at increased risk of BBVs (2% from donors with increased-risk behaviors and 5% from donors with active or past HCV infection) incurred total costs of 311 303 Australian dollars with a gain of 8.53 QALYs. Foregoing kidneys from these donors incurred total costs of $330 517 and a gain of 8.44 QALYs. A cost-saving of $19 214 and additional 0.09 QALYs (~33 d in full health) per person would be generated compared with declining these donors. Increasing the availability of kidneys with increased risk by 15% led to further cost-savings of $57 425 and additional 0.23 QALY gains (~84 d in full health). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10 000 iterations showed accepting kidneys from donors at increased risk led to lower costs and higher QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Shifting clinical practice to accept increased BBV risk donors would likely produce lower costs and higher QALYs for health systems.

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Utilization of Kidneys From Deceased Donors With Primary Brain Malignancy in an Australian Setting.

Kidneys from potential deceased donors with brain cancer are often foregone due to concerns of cancer transmission risk to recipients. There may be uncertainty around donors' medical history and their absolute transmission risk or risk-averse decision-making among clinicians. However, brain cancer transmissions are rare, and prolonging waiting time for recipients is harmful. Methods: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of increasing utilization of potential deceased donors with brain cancer using a Markov model simulation of 1500 patients waitlisted for a kidney transplant, based on linked transplant registry data and with a payer perspective (Australian government). We estimated costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for three interventions: decision support for clinicians in assessing donor risk, improved cancer classification accuracy with real-time data-linkage to hospital records and cancer registries, and increased risk tolerance to allow intermediate-risk donors (up to 6.4% potential transmission risk). Results: Compared with current practice, decision support provided 0.3% more donors with an average transmission risk of 2%. Real-time data-linkage provided 0.6% more donors (1.1% average transmission risk) and increasing risk tolerance (accepting intermediate-risk 6.4%) provided 2.1% more donors (4.9% average transmission risk). Interventions were dominant (improved QALYs and saved costs) in 78%, 80%, and 87% of simulations, respectively. The largest benefit was from increasing risk tolerance (mean +18.6 QALYs and AU$2.2 million [US$1.6 million] cost-savings). Conclusions: Despite the additional risk of cancer transmission, accepting intermediate-risk donors with brain cancer is likely to increase the number of donor kidneys available for transplant, improve patient outcomes, and reduce overall healthcare expenditure.

AcceSS and Equity in Transplantation (ASSET) New Zealand: Protocol for population-wide data linkage platform to investigate equity in access to kidney failure health services in New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is considered the ideal treatment for most people with kidney failure, conferring both survival and quality of life advantages, and is more cost effective than dialysis. Yet, current health systems may serve some people better than others, creating inequities in access to kidney failure treatments and health outcomes. AcceSS and Equity in Transplantation (ASSET) investigators aim to create a linked data platform to facilitate research enquiry into equity of health service delivery for people with kidney failure in New Zealand. METHODS: The New Zealand Ministry of Health will use patients' National Health Index (NHI) numbers to deterministically link individual records held in existing registry and administrative health databases in New Zealand to create the data platform. The initial data linkage will include a study population of incident patients captured in the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), New Zealand Blood Service Database and the Australia and New Zealand Living Kidney Donor Registry (ANZLKD) from 2006 to 2019 and their linked health data. Health data sources will include National Non-Admitted Patient Collection Data, National Minimum Dataset, Cancer Registry, Programme for the Integration of Mental Health Data (PRIMHD), Pharmaceutical Claims Database and Mortality Collection Database. Initial exemplar studies include 1) kidney waitlist dynamics and pathway to transplantation; 2) impact of mental illness on accessing kidney waitlist and transplantation; 3) health service use of living donors following donation. CONCLUSION: The AcceSS and Equity in Transplantation (ASSET) linked data platform will provide opportunity for population-based health services research to examine equity in health care delivery and health outcomes in New Zealand. It also offers potential to inform future service planning by identifying where improvements can be made in the current health system to promote equity in access to health services for those in New Zealand.

Equity and diversity in the nephrology workforce in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Despite diversity initiatives, inequities persist in medicine with negative implications for the workforce and patients. Little is known about workplace inequity in nephrology. AIM: To describe perceptions and experiences of bias by health professionals in the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nephrology (ANZSN), focussing on gender and race. METHODS: A web-based survey of ANZSN members recorded degree of perceived inequity on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (complete). Groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test and logistic regression. Comments were synthesised using qualitative methods to explore themes of inequity and pathways to an inclusive future. RESULTS: Of the 620 members of the ANZSN, there were 134 (22%) respondents, of whom 57% were women and 67% were White. The majority (88%) perceived inequities in the workforce. Perceived drivers of inequity were gender (84/113; 75%), carer responsibilities (74/113; 65%) and race (64/113; 56%). Half (74/131) had personally experienced inequity, based on gender in 70% (52/74) and race in 39% (29/75) with perceived discrimination coming from doctors, patients, academics and health administrators. White males were least likely (odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.90) to experience inequity. Dominant themes from qualitative analysis indicated that the major impacts of inequity were limited opportunities for advancement and lack of formal assistance for those experiencing inequities. Proposed solutions to reduce inequity included normalising the discourse on inequity at an organisational level, with policy changes to ensure diverse representation on committees and in executive leadership positions. CONCLUSIONS: Inequity, particularly driven by gender and race, is common for nephrology health professionals in Australia and New Zealand and impacts career progression.

Screening for Asymptomatic Coronary Artery Disease in Waitlisted Kidney Transplant Candidates: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: On account of the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in patients with kidney failure, clinical practice guidelines recommend regular screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients on the kidney transplant waitlist. To date, the cost-effectiveness of such screening has not been evaluated. A Canadian-Australasian randomized controlled trial of screening kidney transplant candidates for CAD (CARSK) is currently is being conducted to answer this question. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to determine, before completion of the trial, the cost-effectiveness of no further screening versus regular screening for asymptomatic CAD and to evaluate potential influential variables that may affect results of the economic evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: A modeled cost-utility analysis. SETTING & POPULATION: A theoretical cohort of adult Australian and New Zealand kidney transplant candidates on the waitlist. INTERVENTION: No further screening for asymptomatic CAD versus regular protocolized screening (annual or second yearly) for CAD after kidney transplant waitlisting. OUTCOMES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, reported as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). MODEL, PERSPECTIVES, & TIMEFRAME: Markov microsimulation model, health system perspective and over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of no further screening was $11,122 per QALY gained when compared with regular screening. No further screening increased survival by 0.49 life-year or 0.35 QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the costs of transplantation in the first year and CAD prevalence as the most influential variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that 94% of the simulations were cost-effective below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: Rates of cardiovascular events in waitlisted candidates and transplant recipients are limited in the contemporary era. The results may not be generalizable to populations outside Australia and New Zealand. CONCLUSIONS: No further screening for CAD after waitlisting is likely to be cost-effective and may improve survival. Precision around CAD prevalence estimates and health care resource use will reduce existing uncertainty.

A Linguistic Analysis of Health Literacy Demands of Chronic Kidney Disease Patient Education Materials.

BACKGROUND: Instruments to assess the quality and comprehensibility of printed patient education materials may lack proper consideration of how readers derive meaning from text. The Evaluative Linguistic Framework (ELF) considers how factors that influence readers' expectations about health care texts also affect their ability to understand them. The ELF has demonstrated value in improving the quality of patient materials about medication, consent, and self-reported questionnaires, but has not yet been used to evaluate a corpus of patient education materials about chronic disease self-management. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to apply the ELF to examine specific elements of printed self-management patient education materials for chronic kidney disease (CKD) not captured by other tools. METHODS: From a previously published systematic review, we identified 14 patient education materials (eight self-management, six diet and nutrition) for people with CKD. We used the ELF to identify the different ways the text could be structured, its intended purpose, the relationship established between reader and writer, presence of signposting, its complexity and technicality of language, and factual content. KEY RESULTS: Our analysis identified nine possible structural units, of which "introducing the problem" and "instructing the reader to self-manage" were common to all materials. However, there was no consistency or common sequence to these units of text. The intended readership and aims of the author(s) were not always clear; many materials made assumptions about what the reader knew, the language was often complex and dense, and the meta-discourse was sometimes distracting. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests CKD document developers can benefit from a theoretically grounded linguistic tool that focuses on the intended audience and their specific needs. The ELF identified structural units of text, aligned with rhetorical elements that can be uniformly applied for developing self-management education materials for CKD, and provided checks for language complexity. Further work can determine its usefulness for other (e.g., electronic) formats and other chronic diseases. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2018;2(1):e1-e14.]. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Helping patients make meaning from information about their condition is a key goal of health care organizations. We analyzed chronic kidney disease patient education materials on self-management using the Evaluative Linguistic Framework. The purpose and intended audience were frequently unclear. We identified nine structural units of text that may assist information providers to plan and structure content.

Gender Equity in Transplantation: A Report from the Women in Transplantation Workshop of The Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand.

The exponential growth of young talented women choosing science and medicine as their professional career over the past decade is substantial. Currently, more than half of the Australian medical doctoral graduates and early career researchers are comprised of women, but less than 20% of all academic professorial staff are women. The loss of female talent in the hierarchical ladder of Australian academia is a considerable waste of government investment, productivity, and scientific innovation. Gender disparity in the professional workforce composition is even more striking within the field of transplantation. Women are grossly underrepresented in leadership roles, with currently no female heads of unit in any of the Australian and New Zealand transplanting centers. At the same time, there is also gender segregation with a greater concentration of women in lower-status academic position compared with their male counterparts. Given the extent and magnitude of the disparity, the Women in Transplantation Committee, a subcommittee of The Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand established a workshop comprising 8 female clinicians/scientists in transplantation. The key objectives were to (i) identify potential gender equity issues within the transplantation workforce; (ii) devise and implement potential strategies and interventions to address some of these challenges at a societal level; (iii) set realistic and achievable goals to enhance and facility gender equality, equity, and diversity in transplantation.

Health Literacy Demand of Printed Lifestyle Patient Information Materials Aimed at People With Chronic Kidney Disease: Are Materials Easy to Understand and Act On and Do They Use Meaningful Visual Aids?

People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) need usable information on how to live well and slow disease progression. This information is complex, difficult to communicate, and changes during the course of the disease. We examined lifestyle-related printed CKD patient education materials focusing on actionability and visual aids. From a previous systematic review assessing readability of CKD patient information, we identified materials targeting nutrition, exercise, and self-management. We applied the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) to evaluate how easy materials were to understand (understandability) and act on (actionability). We created the 5C image checklist and systematically examined all visual aids for clarity, contribution, contradiction, and caption. Of the 26 materials included, one fifth (n = 5, 19%) were rated "not suitable" on SAM and fewer than half (n = 11, 42%) were rated "superior." PEMAT mean subdomain scores were suboptimal for actionability (52) and visuals (37). Overall, more than half of all 223 graphics (n = 127, 57%) contributed no meaning to the text. Images in three documents (12%) directly contradicted messaging in the text. CKD lifestyle information materials require focused improvements in both actionability of advice given and use of visual aids to support people with CKD to self-manage their condition. The fifth C is culture and is best evaluated by user-testing.

QUALITY OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS PREPARED FOR THE MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

OBJECTIVES: The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) makes recommendations to the Australian Government for funding health technologies under the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). Differences in public, clinical, commercial, and political opinions on health expenditure emphasize the importance of defensible funding decisions. We aimed to evaluate the quality of health technology assessment (HTA) reports over time and among health technologies assessed for MSAC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A cohort study was performed of HTA reports prepared for MSAC between 1998 and 2013. We measured the quality of HTA reports using reporting guidelines proposed by the European Collaboration for Assessment of Health Interventions. Individual component scores across eleven domains were calculated, and summed for an overall aggregate score. We used linear regression to investigate any change in quality over time and among the types of technologies assessed. RESULTS: We included 110 HTA reports. The safety (80 percent), effectiveness (84 percent), economic (74 percent), and organizational (99 percent) domains were better reported than the psychological, social, and ethical considerations (34 percent). The basic (75 percent), methodological (62 percent), background (82 percent), contextual (46 percent), status quo (54 percent), and technical information (66 percent) that framed each assessment were inconsistently reported. On average, overall quality scores increased by 2 percent (p < 0.001) per year, from approximately 60 percent to 80 percent over the 15-year period, with no significant difference among surgical, diagnostic or other nonpharmaceutical health technologies (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: HTA reports prepared for MSAC are a key tool in allocating scarce health resources. The overall quality of these reports has improved, but the reporting of specific domains and subthemes therein could be better addressed.

How Qualitative Research Informs Clinical and Policy Decision Making in Transplantation: A Review.

Patient-centered care is no longer just a buzzword. It is now widely touted as a cornerstone in delivering quality care across all fields of medicine. However, patient-centered strategies and interventions necessitate evidence about patients' decision-making processes, values, priorities, and needs. Qualitative research is particularly well suited to understanding the experience and perspective of patients, donors, clinicians, and policy makers on a wide range of transplantation-related topics including organ donation and allocation, adherence to prescribed therapy, pretransplant and posttransplant care, implementation of clinical guidelines, and doctor-patient communication. In transplantation, evidence derived from qualitative research has been integrated into strategies for shared decision-making, patient educational resources, process evaluations of trials, clinical guidelines, and policies. The aim of this article is to outline key concepts and methods used in qualitative research, guide the appraisal of qualitative studies, and assist clinicians to understand how qualitative research may inform their practice and policy.

How is health economics relevant to transplant clinicians?

Decision making is complex and difficult in clinical practice. Clinicians are often faced with a large range of possible alternative decision options, each with their own consequences and trade-offs. Health economics methods enable informed decision making on how best to allocate limited resources that could lead to most health gains. Economic evaluation in particular is highly relevant in transplantation medicine. Transplantation is an expensive intervention, but it improves the quality of life and survival of people with chronic diseases. The balance between health care resource use and the optimal health gains is useful not only to decision-makers, but also to consumers, clinicians, and researchers. This article is an overview of the concepts of economic evaluation in the setting of transplantation and highlights the applicability of these concepts in clinical transplantation.

Factors influencing patient choice of dialysis versus conservative care to treat end-stage kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: For every patient with chronic kidney disease who undergoes renal-replacement therapy, there is one patient who undergoes conservative management of their disease. We aimed to determine the most important characteristics of dialysis and the trade-offs patients were willing to make in choosing dialysis instead of conservative care. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment involving adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease from eight renal clinics in Australia. We assessed the influence of treatment characteristics (life expectancy, number of visits to the hospital per week, ability to travel, time spent undergoing dialysis [i.e., time spent attached to a dialysis machine per treatment, measured in hours], time of day at which treatment occurred, availability of subsidized transport and flexibility of the treatment schedule) on patients' preferences for dialysis versus conservative care. RESULTS: Of 151 patients invited to participate, 105 completed our survey. Patients were more likely to choose dialysis than conservative care if dialysis involved an increased average life expectancy (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.15), if they were able to dialyse during the day or evening rather than during the day only (OR 8.95, 95% CI 4.46-17.97), and if subsidized transport was available (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.24-1.95). Patients were less likely to choose dialysis over conservative care if an increase in the number of visits to hospital was required (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.88) and if there were more restrictions on their ability to travel (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.36-0.61). Patients were willing to forgo 7 months of life expectancy to reduce the number of required visits to hospital and 15 months of life expectancy to increase their ability to travel. INTERPRETATION: Patients approaching end-stage kidney disease are willing to trade considerable life expectancy to reduce the burden and restrictions imposed by dialysis.

Comparative survival and economic benefits of deceased donor kidney transplantation and dialysis in people with varying ages and co-morbidities.

BACKGROUND: Deceased donor kidneys for transplantation are in most countries allocated preferentially to recipients who have limited co-morbidities. Little is known about the incremental health and economic gain from transplanting those with co-morbidities compared to remaining on dialysis. The aim of our study is to estimate the average and incremental survival benefits and health care costs of listing and transplantation compared to dialysis among individuals with varying co-morbidities. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was constructed, using current outcomes for patients with defined co-morbidities treated with either dialysis or transplantation, to compare the health and economic benefits of listing and transplantation with dialysis. FINDINGS: Using the current waiting time for deceased donor transplantation, transplanting a potential recipient, with or without co-morbidities achieves survival gains of between 6 months and more than three life years compared to remaining on dialysis, with an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than $50,000/LYS, even among those with advanced age. Age at listing and the waiting time for transplantation are the most influential variables within the model. If there were an unlimited supply of organs and no waiting time, transplanting the younger and healthier individuals saves the most number of life years and is cost-saving, whereas transplanting the middle-age to older patients still achieves substantial incremental gains in life expectancy compared to being on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our modelled analyses suggest transplanting the younger and healthier individuals with end-stage kidney disease maximises survival gains and saves money. Listing and transplanting those with considerable co-morbidities is also cost-effective and achieves substantial survival gains compared with the dialysis alternative. Preferentially excluding the older and sicker individuals cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds.

Screening for renal cancer in recipients of kidney transplants.

BACKGROUND: Renal cancer is the most common solid organ cancer in the kidney transplant population with an excess risk ~ 5-fold greater than the general population. It is uncertain whether routine screening for renal cancer is cost-effective. The aim of our study is to estimate the costs and health benefits of ultrasonographic (US) screening for renal cancer in the kidney transplant population. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and benefits in a cohort of kidney transplant recipients (n = 1000, aged 18-69 years), who underwent annual and biennial US screening for renal cancer, compared with a cohort that did not. RESULTS: For recipients of kidney transplants aged 18-69 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for routine US screening ranged from $252,100/LYS for biennial screening to $320,988/LYS for annual screening. A total of two and one cancer deaths were averted in the annually and biennially screened population, with a relative cancer-specific mortality reduction by 25% and 12.5%, respectively. Using a series of sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs and test specificity of ultrasonography, prevalence of disease, and the risk of graft failure in the screened population. CONCLUSIONS: Routine screening for renal cancer may reduce the risk of cancer-related deaths in recipients of kidney transplants. Uncertainties, however, exist in the model's influential variables including the risk of graft failure among those who received contrast-enhanced diagnostic computer tomography. Given the available evidence, routine screening for renal cancers may not be cost-effective for recipients of kidney transplants.

The cost-effectiveness of induction immunosuppression in kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Induction immunosuppression is perceived as an expensive therapy, so is often given only to select patients. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of antibody induction comparing interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL2Ra) to standard therapy with no induction or induction with polyclonal antibodies. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes [survival (life years saved, LYS) and quality-adjusted survival (QALYs)] for the alternative strategies. Outcome data were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized trials and large-scale renal registries. RESULTS: IL2Ra offers improved survival of 0.21 LYS (2.5 months) and 1.42 QALYs compared with no induction, with a cost saving over 20 years of $79,302 per patient treated regardless of risk profile. The incremental benefits of IL2Ra compared with polyclonal antibody induction therapy were 0.35 LYS (4.3 months) and 0.20 QALYs, with an incremental cost of $5144 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of IL2Ra compared to polyclonal induction was $14,803 per LYS and $25,928 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that IL2Ra remained more effective and less expensive than no induction. When IL2Ra was compared to polyclonal induction, the model was sensitive to changes in the cost of induction and the probability of malignancy. Over the range of all other variables tested, IL2Ra was cost-effective compared to polyclonal induction. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting IL2Ra as induction immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients improves survival and QALYs and is less costly than no induction. It also represents good value for money compared to polyclonal induction.