Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of the kidneys for transplant worldwide come from living donors. Despite advantages of living donor transplants, rates have stagnated in recent years. One possible barrier may be costs related to the transplant process that potential willing donors may incur for travel, parking, accommodation, and lost productivity. METHODS: To better understand and quantify the financial costs incurred by living kidney donors, we conducted a prospective cohort study, recruiting 912 living kidney donors from 12 transplant centers across Canada between 2009 and 2014; 821 of them completed all or a portion of the costing survey. We report microcosted total, out-of-pocket, and lost productivity costs (in 2016 Canadian dollars) for living kidney donors from donor evaluation start to 3 months after donation. We examined costs according to (1) the donor's relationship with their recipient, including spousal (donation to a partner), emotionally related nonspousal (friend, step-parent, in law), or genetically related; and (2) donation type (directed, paired kidney, or nondirected). RESULTS: Living kidney donors incurred a median (75th percentile) of $1254 ($2589) in out-of-pocket costs and $0 ($1908) in lost productivity costs. On average, total costs were $2226 higher in spousal compared with emotionally related nonspousal donors (P=0.02) and $1664 higher in directed donors compared with nondirected donors (P<0.001). Total costs (out-of-pocket and lost productivity) exceeded $5500 for 205 (25%) donors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to inform strategies to minimize the financial burden of living donation, which may help improve the donation experience and increase the number of living donor kidney transplants.

Duration of Living Kidney Transplant Donor Evaluations: Findings From 2 Multicenter Cohort Studies.

BACKGROUND: A prolonged living kidney donor evaluation may result in worse outcomes for transplant recipients. Better knowledge of the duration of this process may help inform future donors and identify opportunities for improvement. STUDY DESIGN: 1 prospective and 1 retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: At 16 Canadian and Australian transplantation centers (prospective cohort) and 5 Ontario transplantation centers (retrospective cohort), we assessed the duration of living kidney donor evaluation and explored donor, recipient, and transplantation factors associated with longer evaluation times. Data were obtained from 2 sources: donor medical records using chart abstraction and health care administrative databases. PREDICTORS: Donor and recipient demographics, direct versus paired donation, center-level variables. OUTCOMES: Duration of living donor evaluation. RESULTS: The median total duration of transplantation evaluation (time from when the candidate started the evaluation until donation) was 10.3 (IQR, 6.5-16.7) months. The median duration from evaluation start until approval to donate was 7.9 (IQR, 4.6-14.1) months, and from approval until donation was 0.7 (IQR, 0.3-2.4) months, respectively. The median time between the first and last consultation among donors who completed a nephrology, surgery, and psychosocial assessment in the prospective cohort was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.3) months, and between computed tomography angiography and donation was 4.8 (IQR, 2.6-9.2) months. After adjustment, the total duration of transplantation evaluation was longer if the donor participated in paired donation (6.6 [95% CI, 1.6-9.7] months) and if the recipient was referred later relative to the donor's evaluation start date (0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.0] months [per month of delayed referral]). Results depended on whether the recipient was receiving dialysis. LIMITATIONS: Living donor candidates who did not donate were not included and proxy measures were used for some dates in the donor evaluation process. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of kidney transplant donor evaluation is variable and can be lengthy. Better understanding of the reasons for a prolonged evaluation may inform quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary delays.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Sevelamer and Lanthanum versus Calcium-Based Binders for Hyperphosphatemia of Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Phosphate binders are used to treat hyperphosphatemia among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVES: To conduct an economic evaluation comparing calcium-free binders sevelamer and lanthanum with calcium-based binders for patients with CKD. METHODS: Effectiveness data were obtained from a recent meta-analysis of randomized trials. Effectiveness was measured as life-years gained and translated to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using utility weights from the literature. A Markov model consisting of non-dialysis-dependent (NDD)-CKD, dialysis-dependent (DD)-CKD, and death was developed to estimate the incremental costs and effects of sevelamer and lanthanum versus those of calcium-based binders. A lifetime horizon was used and both costs and effects were discounted at 1.5%. All costs are presented in 2015 Canadian dollars from the Canadian public payer perspective. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis were presented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for risk pooling methods, omission of dialysis costs, and persistence of drug effects on mortality. RESULTS: Sevelamer resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $106,522/QALY for NDD-CKD and $133,847/QALY for DD-CKD cohorts. Excluding dialysis costs, sevelamer was cost-effective in the NDD-CKD cohort ($5,847/QALY) and the DD-CKD cohort ($11,178/QALY). Lanthanum was dominated regardless of whether dialysis costs were included. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence does not clearly support the cost-effectiveness of non-calcium-containing phosphate binders (sevelamer and lanthanum) relative to calcium-containing phosphate binders in DD-CKD patients. Our study suggests that sevelamer may be cost-effective before dialysis onset. Because of the remaining uncertainty in several clinically relevant outcomes over time in DD-CKD and NDD-CKD patients, further research is encouraged.

The efficacy and safety of sevelamer and lanthanum versus calcium-containing and iron-based binders in treating hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: It remains unclear which phosphate binders should be preferred for hyperphosphatemia management in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing sevelamer or lanthanum with other phosphate binders in CKD. Results: Fifty-one trials (8829 patients) were reviewed. Compared with calcium-based binders, all-cause mortality was nonsignificantly lower with sevelamer {risk ratio [RR] 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-1.08]} and lanthanum [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.18-3.00)], but risk of bias was concerning. Compared with calcium-based binders, sevelamer reduced the risk of hypercalcemia [RR 0.27 (95% CI 0.17-0.42)], as did lanthanum [RR 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.32)]. Sevelamer reduced hospitalizations [RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.31-0.81)], but not lanthanum [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.34-1.93)]. The presence/absence of other clinically relevant outcomes was infrequently reported. Compared with calcium-based binders, sevelamer reduced serum calcium, low-density lipoprotein and coronary artery calcification, but increased intact parathyroid hormone. The clinical relevance of these changes is unknown since corresponding clinical outcomes were not reported. Lanthanum had less favorable impact on biochemical parameters. Sevelamer hydrochloride and sevelamer carbonate were similar in three studies. Sevelamer was similar to lanthanum (three studies) and iron-based binders (three studies). Conclusion: Sevelamer was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in mortality and significantly lower hospitalization rates and hypercalcemia compared with calcium-based binders. However, differences in important outcomes, such as cardiac events, fractures, calciphylaxis, hyperchloremic acidosis and health-related quality of life remain understudied. Lanthanum and iron-based binders did not show superiority for any clinically relevant outcomes. Future studies that fail to measure clinically important outcomes (the reason why phosphate binders are prescribed in the first place) will be wasteful.

Nonreimbursed Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Case Study From Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Living donors may incur out-of-pocket costs during the donation process. While many jurisdictions have programs to reimburse living kidney donors for expenses, few programs have been evaluated. METHODS: The Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors was launched in the province of Ontario, Canada in 2008 and reimburses travel, parking, accommodation, meals, and loss of income; each category has a limit and the maximum total reimbursement is $5500 CAD. We conducted a case study to compare donors' incurred costs (out-of-pocket and lost income) with amounts reimbursed by Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors. Donors with complete or partial cost data from a large prospective cohort study were linked to Ontario's reimbursement program to determine the gap between incurred and reimbursed costs (n = 159). RESULTS: The mean gap between costs incurred and costs reimbursed to the donors was $1313 CAD for out-of-pocket costs and $1802 CAD for lost income, representing a mean reimbursement gap of $3115 CAD. Nondirected donors had the highest mean loss for out-of-pocket costs ($2691 CAD) and kidney paired donors had the highest mean loss for lost income ($4084 CAD). There were no significant differences in the mean gap across exploratory subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement programs minimize some of the financial loss for living kidney donors. Opportunities remain to remove the financial burden of living kidney donors.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of renal replacement therapy modalities for acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes among critically ill adults with acute kidney injury (AKI) treated with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) or sustained low efficiency dialysis (SLED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in 2015 or earlier using MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane databases and grey literature. Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies comparing outcomes of mortality, dialysis dependence or length of stay among critically ill adults receiving CRRT, IHD or SLED to treat AKI. Mortality and dialysis dependence from RCTs were pooled using meta-analytic techniques. Length of stay from RCTs and results from prospective cohort studies were described qualitatively. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were eligible. RRT modality was not associated with in-hospital mortality (CRRT vs IHD: RR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.92-1.09], CRRT vs SLED: RR 1.23 [95% CI, 1.00-1.51]) or dialysis dependence (CRRT vs IHD: RR 0.90 [95% CI, 0.59-1.38], CRRT vs SLED: RR 1.15 [95% CI, 0.67-1.99]). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a definitive advantage for any RRT modality on short-term patient or kidney survival. Well-designed, adequately-powered trials are needed to better define the role of RRT modalities for treatment of critically ill patients with AKI.