Cost-effectiveness analysis of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing in solid organ transplantation using real-world data.

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant recipients relative to standard of care (SOC) tacrolimus dosing, from a US healthcare payer perspective. We developed decision-tree models to compare economic and clinical outcomes between CYP3A5 genotype-guided and SOC tacrolimus therapy in the first six months post-transplant. We derived inputs for CYP3A5 phenotype frequencies and physician use of genotype test results to inform clinical care from literature; tacrolimus exposure [high vs low tacrolimus time in therapeutic range using the Rosendaal algorithm (TAC TTR-Rosendaal)] and outcomes (incidences of acute tacrolimus nephrotoxicity, acute cellular rejection, and death) from real-world data; and costs from the Medicare Fee Schedule and literature. We calculated cost per avoided event and performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the results to changes in inputs. Incremental costs per avoided event for CYP3A5 genotype-guided vs SOC tacrolimus dosing were $176,667 for kidney recipients, $364,000 for liver recipients, $12,982 for heart recipients, and $93,333 for lung recipients. The likelihood of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing leading to cost-savings was 19.8% in kidney, 32.3% in liver, 51.8% in heart, and 54.1% in lung transplant recipients. Physician use of genotype results to guide clinical care and the proportion of patients with a high TAC TTR-Rosendaal were key parameters driving the cost-effectiveness of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus therapy. Relative to SOC, CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing resulted in a slightly greater benefit at a higher cost. Further economic evaluations examining intermediary outcomes (e.g., dose modifications) are needed, particularly in populations with higher frequencies of CYP3A5 expressers.

Best practices to optimize utilization of the National Living Donor Assistance Center for the financial assistance of living organ donors.

Living organ donors face direct costs when donating an organ, including transportation, lodging, meals, and lost wages. For those most in need, the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) provides reimbursement to defray travel and subsistence costs associated with living donor evaluation, surgery, and follow-up. While this program currently supports 9% of all US living donors, there is tremendous variability in its utilization across US transplant centers, which may limit patient access to living donor transplantation. Based on feedback from the transplant community, NLDAC convened a Best Practices Workshop on August 2, 2018, in Arlington, VA, to identify strategies to optimize transplant program utilization of this valuable resource. Attendees included team members from transplant centers that are high NLDAC users; the NLDAC program team; and Advisory Group members. After a robust review of NLDAC data and engagement in group discussions, the workgroup identified concrete best practices for administrative and transplant center leadership involvement; for individuals filing NLDAC applications at transplant centers; and to improve patient education about potential financial barriers to living organ donation. Multiple opportunities were identified for intervention to increase transplant programs' NLDAC utilization and reduce financial burdens inhibiting expansion of living donor transplantation in the United States.

Evolving ethical issues with advances in uterus transplantation.

While uterus transplantation was once considered only a theoretical possibility for patients with uterine factor infertility, researchers have now developed methods of transplantation that have led to successful pregnancies with multiple children born to date. Because of the unique and significant nature of this type of research, it has been undertaken with collaboration not only with scientists and physicians but also with bioethicists, who paved the initial path for research of uterus transplantation to take place. As the science of uterus transplantation continues to advance, so too must the public dialogue among obstetrician/gynecologists, transplant surgeons, bioethicists, and other key stakeholders in defining the continued direction of research in addition to planning for the clinical implementation of uterus transplantation as a therapeutic option. Given the rapid advances in this field, the time has come to revisit the fundamental questions raised at the inception of uterus transplantation and, looking forward, determine the future of this approach given emerging data on the procedure's impact on individuals, families, and society.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Persistent Hepatitis E Virus Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Patients in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Despite potentially severe and fatal outcomes, recent studies of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients in Europe suggest that hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is underdiagnosed, with a prevalence of active infection of up to 4.4%. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of introducing routine screening for HEV infection in SOT recipients in the UK. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of 4 HEV screening options over the lifetime of 1000 SOT recipients. The current baseline of nonsystematic testing was compared with annual screening of all patients by polymerase chain reaction (PCR; strategy A) or HEV-antigen (HEV-Ag) detection (strategy B) and selective screening of patients who have a raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT) value by PCR (strategy C) or HEV-Ag (strategy D). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We adopted the National Health Service (NHS) perspective and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5%. RESULTS: At a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY gained, systematic screening of SOT patients by any method (strategy A-D) had a high probability (77.9%) of being cost-effective. Among screening strategies, strategy D is optimal and expected to be cost-saving to the NHS; if only PCR testing strategies are considered, then strategy C becomes cost-effective (£660/QALY). These findings were robust against a wide range of sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our model showed that routine screening for HEV in SOT patients is very likely to be cost-effective in the UK, particularly in patients presenting with an abnormal alanine aminotransferase.

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Individuals With Cystic Fibrosis for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Individuals with cystic fibrosis are at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with the general population, and risk is higher among those who received an organ transplant. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine optimal CRC screening strategies for patients with cystic fibrosis. METHODS: We adjusted the existing Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model to reflect increased CRC risk and lower life expectancy in patients with cystic fibrosis. Modeling was performed separately for individuals who never received an organ transplant and patients who had received an organ transplant. We modeled 76 colonoscopy screening strategies that varied the age range and screening interval. The optimal screening strategy was determined based on a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per life-year gained. Sensitivity and supplementary analyses were performed, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an alternative test, earlier ages of transplantation, and increased rates of colonoscopy complications, to assess if optimal screening strategies would change. RESULTS: Colonoscopy every 5 years, starting at an age of 40 years, was the optimal colonoscopy strategy for patients with cystic fibrosis who never received an organ transplant; this strategy prevented 79% of deaths from CRC. Among patients with cystic fibrosis who had received an organ transplant, optimal colonoscopy screening should start at an age of 30 or 35 years, depending on the patient's age at time of transplantation. Annual FIT screening was predicted to be cost-effective for patients with cystic fibrosis. However, the level of accuracy of the FIT in this population is not clear. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model, we found screening of patients with cystic fibrosis for CRC to be cost effective. Because of the higher risk of CRC in these patients, screening should start at an earlier age with a shorter screening interval. The findings of this study (especially those on FIT screening) may be limited by restricted evidence available for patients with cystic fibrosis.

Expanding analytic possibilities in pediatric solid organ transplantation through linkage of administrative and clinical registry databases.

Database linkage is a common strategy to expand analytic possibilities. Our group recently completed a linkage between the SRTR and PHIS databases for pediatric heart transplant recipients. The aim of this project was to expand the linkage between SRTR and PHIS to include liver, kidney, lung, heart-lung, and small bowel transplants. All patients (<21 years) who underwent liver, kidney, lung, heart-lung, or small bowel transplant were identified from the PHIS database using APR-DRG codes (2002-2018). Linkage was performed in a stepwise approach using indirect identifiers. Hospital costs were estimated based on hospital charges and cost-to-charge ratios, inflated to 2018 dollars and described by transplant type. A total of 14 061 patients overlapped between databases. Of these, 13 388 (95.2%) were uniquely linked. Linkage success ranged from 92.6% to 97.8% by organ system. A total of 12 940 (92%) patients had complete cost data. Hospitalization costs were greatest for patients undergoing small bowel transplantation with a median cost of $734 454 (IQR $336 174 - $1 504 167), followed by heart $565 386 (IQR $352 813 - $999 216), heart-lung $471 573 (IQR $328 523 - 992 438), lung $303 536 (IQR $215 383 - $612 749), liver $200 448 (IQR $130 880 - $357 897), and kidney transplant $94 796 (IQR $73 157 -$131 040). We report a robust linkage between the SRTR and PHIS databases, providing an invaluable tool to assess resource utilization in solid organ transplant recipients. Our analysis provides contemporary cost data for pediatric solid organ transplantation from the largest US sample reported to date. It also provides a platform for expanded analyses in the pediatric transplant population.

What constitutes a reasonable compensation for non-commercial oocyte donors: an analogy with living organ donation and medical research participation.

There is a growing consensus that the offer of a reasonable compensation for oocyte donation for reproductive treatment is acceptable if it does not compromise voluntary and altruistically motivated donation. However, how to translate this 'reasonable compensation' in practice remains unclear as compensation rates offered to oocyte donors between different European Union countries vary significantly. Clinics involved in oocyte donation, as well as those in other medical contexts, might be encouraged in calculating a more consistent and transparent compensation for donors if the elements that constitute a reasonable compensation are explicated. In doing so, lessons can be learnt from living organ donation and medical research participation. Practices in which the elements of a reasonable compensation for the individuals involved have already been more defined in the literature. By means of analogical reasoning, we will outline the different components of a reasonable compensation and subsequently apply these to the context of oocyte donation. We will argue that oocyte donors should first of all be reasonably reimbursed direct expenses related to the donation, without standard remuneration of lost wages. Second, donating oocytes requests a serious time investment, therefore donors are entitled to suitable compensation for their time spent and efforts made. Finally, we will explain that a reasonable compensation consisting of these two components allows for altruism to remain the key value of oocyte donation for reproductive treatment. However, if we acknowledge that donors' motives are more complex and often include reasons from self-interest, the reasonable compensation may be complemented with modest (non)monetary benefits.

The effects of a multidisciplinary high-throughput skin clinic on healthcare costs of organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: A long-term complication among organ transplant recipients (OTRs) is skin malignancies which are associated with level and duration of immunosuppressive treatment, sun exposure and age. Dermatological surveillance is recommended for OTRs at high risk of skin malignancies, but evidence is lacking on the benefits of such services. OBJECTIVE: To examine the economic impact on patients and on the hospital service of a multidisciplinary high-throughput skin cancer clinic in Brisbane, Australia, dedicated to dermatological and surgical care of high-risk OTRs. METHODS: In a pre/postdesign, hospital admission and cost data were obtained for 101 consecutively enrolled study participants from 12 months prior to the introduction of the clinic (to February 2016), the 3-month 'run-in' period (March to May 2016) and 12 months subsequent (to June 2017). Differences between pre- and post-clinic hospital costs were tested using non-parametric bootstrapping and interrupted time series analysis. A survey of patient out-of-pocket costs and perceived financial burden was also undertaken during the clinic. RESULTS: Overall hospital costs were higher after the clinic but 3-monthly hospital costs for skin procedures trended downwards. Despite 3-monthly mean, hospital visits increasing from 85 to 314, mean 3-monthly costs reduced by AU$1491 (P < 0.001) indicating greater cost efficiency. Total patient out-of-pocket costs were AU$18 377 over 3 months. CONCLUSION: Clinical costing data revealed higher, more rapid throughput and significantly lower per patient costs pre- and postestablishment of a multidisciplinary skin cancer clinic for OTRs.

Will more organs save more lives? Cost-effectiveness and the ethics of expanding organ procurement.

The assumption that procuring more organs will save more lives has inspired increasingly forceful calls to increase organ procurement. This project, in contrast, directly questions the premise that more organ transplantation means more lives saved. Its argument begins with the fact that resources are limited and medical procedures have opportunity costs. Because many other lifesaving interventions are more cost-effective than transplantation and compete with transplantation for a limited budget, spending on organ transplantation consumes resources that could have been used to save a greater number of other lives. This argument has not yet been advanced in debates over expanded procurement and could buttress existing concerns about expanded procurement. To support this argument, I review existing empirical data on the cost-effectiveness of transplantation and compare them to data on interventions for other illnesses. These data should motivate utilitarians and others whose primary goal is maximizing population-wide health benefits to doubt the merits of expanding organ procurement. I then consider two major objections: one makes the case that transplant candidates have a special claim to medical resources, and the other challenges the use of cost-effectiveness to set priorities. I argue that there is no reason to conclude that transplant candidates' medical interests should receive special priority, and that giving some consideration to cost-effectiveness in priority setting requires neither sweeping changes to overall health priorities nor the adoption of any specific, controversial metric for assessing cost-effectiveness. Before searching for more organs, we should first ensure the provision of cost-effective care.

Financial compensation for organ donors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With an increasing demand for donor organs, strategies to increase the number of available donor organs have become more focused. Compensating donors for donation is one strategy proposed to increase the availability of organs for transplant. This has been implemented in several systems internationally, but debate continues in the United States with respect to appropriate strategies. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) currently prohibits the transfer of any human organ 'for valuable consideration' for transplantation, but allows for the removal of financial disincentives. RECENT FINDINGS: Several proposals currently exist for compensating patients for living donation. Recent data have focused on studying and creating mechanisms for reimbursement of costs incurred as part of the donation process, which is related to the removal of disincentives to living donation. Others have advocated for the provision of actual incentives to patients for the act of donating, in an attempt to further expand living donation. The current debate focuses on what measures can reasonably be taken to increase donation, and whether additional incentives will encourage more donation or reduce the motivation for altruistic donation. SUMMARY: Currently, the transplant community broadly supports the removal of disincentives for living donors, including reimbursement of expenses for travel, housing and lost wages incurred during evaluation, surgery and after care. Others have advocated for financial incentives to further increase the number of donor organs available for transplant. Although the removal of disincentives is currently allowed under the existing legal structure of NOTA, providing financial incentives for living donation would require further evaluation of the economics, law, ethics and public readiness for a significant policy shift.

OPTN/SRTR 2016 Annual Data Report: Economics.

Medicare costs vary for solid organ transplant recipients by outcome: survival with graft function, survival with graft failure, and death. Average per-person per-year reimbursement was $75 thousand for kidney recipients who survived the first year posttransplant with a functioning graft, $171 thousand for those who required a return to dialysis or retransplant, and $350 thousand for those who died with function. For pancreas recipients: $105 thousand for those who survived the first year with a functioning graft, $120 thousand for those who survived pancreas failure, and $443 thousand for those who died with function. For liver recipients: $154 thousand for those who survived with a functioning graft, $388 thousand for those who required retransplant, and $740 thousand who died with function. For intestine recipients: $301 thousand for those who survived with a functioning graft and $1 million for those who died with function. For heart recipients: $272 thousand for those who survived with a functioning graft and $1.2 million for those who died with function. For lung recipients: $196 thousand for those who survived with a functioning graft, $642 thousand for those who required retransplant, and $761 thousand for those who died with function.

Medical crowdfunding for organ transplantation.

An increasing number of patients and families are utilizing online crowdfunding to support their medical expenses related to organ transplantation. The factors influencing the success of crowdfunding campaigns are poorly understood. Crowdfunding campaigns were abstracted from a popular crowdfunding web site. Campaigns were included if they were actively accepting donations to fund medical expenses related to transplantation of selected organs. The primary outcome measure was total amount raised among successful campaigns receiving at least one donation. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed on various campaign characteristics. A total of 850 campaigns were analyzed. Kidney transplant campaigns were most common (40.5%), followed by liver (33.3%), lung (12.2%), heart (11.3%), and multiorgan (2.7%). 69.1% of campaigns received any donation, and among these, the mean amount raised was $3664 (median $1175). The following factors were significantly associated with amount raised: more positive emotional sentiment in the campaign description (+2.6% per AFINN unit, P < .001), longer campaign description length (+2.4% per 100 characters, P = .001), higher goal amount (+0.6% per $1000 of goal amount, P = .004), and third-person description perspective (+131% vs first person, P < .001). Physicians will likely encounter medical crowdfunding with increasing frequency as it continues to grow in popularity among their patients.

Uterus transplants and the insufficient value of gestation.

Uterus transplants provide another treatment for infertility. Some might think that we should embrace such transplants as one more way to assist people to have children. However, in this paper I argue that uterus transplants are not something that we ought to fund, nor something that we should make easy to access. First, I argue that any justification of providing uterus transplants must be based on the value of the experience of gestation, rather than on claims of meeting medical need or promoting normal functioning. Second, I demonstrate that such a justification has limited prospects of success. The value of experiencing gestation is unlikely to be sufficient to justify state funding of uterus transplants and, further, we have reason to refrain from enabling such transplants.

Financing uterus transplants: The United States context.

The first baby has successfully been born by uterus transplantation (UTx) in the United States and the procedure is swiftly becoming a viable clinical option for patients with uterine factor infertility (UFI). This raises a practical ethical question: should health insurers finance UTx and what issues should they consider in coming to this decision? The article lays forth some of the factors that shape the decision over whether to finance UTx in the United States, including what procedures must be covered, whether UTx is more like organ transplantation or infertility treatment (which are treated differently in the United States), and the benefits and alternatives of the procedure. Then, the article explores arguments around why UTx should be financed, or at least considered along with other important medical needs. The paper argues that UTx ought to be considered along with other competing claims for healthcare services. In countries that generously cover other infertility services, it may logically follow that medical services that enable gestation should be insured when the healthcare system covers services to conceive. In the United States, however, many groups have long suffered inadequate access to medical care, in the context of infertility and more broadly. U.S. healthcare may need to be made more widely equitable, before covering UTx is seen as financially or politically possible.

Social, economic, and policy implications of organ preservation advances.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite over 60 years of progress in the field of since the first organ transplant, insufficient organ preservation capabilities still place profound constraints on transplantation. These constraints play multiple and compounding roles in the predominant limitations of the field: the severe shortages of transplant organs, short-term and long-term posttransplant outcomes and complications, the unmet global need for development of transplant infrastructures, and economic burdens that limit patient access to transplantation and contribute to increasing global healthcare costs. This review surveys ways that advancing preservation technologies can play a role in each of these areas, ultimately benefiting thousands if not millions of patients worldwide. RECENT FINDINGS: Preservation advances can create a wide range of benefits across many facets of organ transplantation, as well as related areas of transplant research. As these technologies mature, so will the policies around their use to maximize the benefits offered by organ preservation. SUMMARY: Organ preservation advances stand to increase local and global access to transplantation, improve transplant outcomes, and accelerate progress in related areas such as immune tolerance induction and xenotransplantation. This area holds the potential to save the healthcare system many billions of dollars and reduce costs across many aspects of transplantation. Novel preservation technologies, along with other technologies facilitated by preservation advances, could potentially save millions of lives in the coming years.

OPTN/SRTR 2015 Annual Data Report: Economics.

While the costs to Medicare of solid organ transplants are varied and considerable, the total Medicare expenditure of $4.4 billion for solid organ transplant recipients in 2014 remained less than 1% of all Medicare expenditures. For patients covered by Medicare, the ratio of pre- to posttransplant cost of care varied widely by organ and within some organ categories by patient characteristics. This chapter reports pretransplant costs for all solid organ candidates covered by Medicare to allow investigators to further explore the relative cost of transplant compared with alternative management.

Providing Coverage for the Unique Lifelong Health Care Needs of Living Kidney Donors Within the Framework of Financial Neutrality.

Organ donation should neither enrich donors nor impose financial burdens on them. We described the scope of health care required for all living kidney donors, reflecting contemporary understanding of long-term donor health outcomes; proposed an approach to identify donor health conditions that should be covered within the framework of financial neutrality; and proposed strategies to pay for this care. Despite the Affordable Care Act in the United States, donors continue to have inadequate coverage for important health conditions that are donation related or that may compromise postdonation kidney function. Amendment of Medicare regulations is needed to clarify that surveillance and treatment of conditions that may compromise postdonation kidney function following donor nephrectomy will be covered without expense to the donor. In other countries lacking health insurance for all residents, sufficient data exist to allow the creation of a compensation fund or donor insurance policies to ensure appropriate care. Providing coverage for donation-related sequelae as well as care to preserve postdonation kidney function ensures protection against the financial burdens of health care encountered by donors throughout their lives. Providing coverage for this care should thus be cost-effective, even without considering the health care cost savings that occur for living donor transplant recipients.

The National Living Donor Assistance Center perspective on barriers to the use of federal travel grants for living donors.

Recent research has identified important barriers that potential living organ donors face in utilizing travel reimbursement funds from the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC). In this article, we provide clarification and comment on these potential barriers from the NLDAC program perspective. The goal of financial neutrality for living donors requires further action. We discuss recent developments and further steps that may help achieve this goal and ultimately affect the shortage of donor organs.

Pre-emptive Intestinal Transplant: The Surgeon's Point of View.

Pre-emptive transplantation is a well-established practice for certain types of end-organ failure such as in the use of kidney transplantation. For irreversible intestinal failure, total parenteral nutrition (TPN) remains the gold standard, due to the suboptimal long-term results of intestinal transplantation. As such, the only role for pre-emptive transplantation, if at all, will be for patients identified to be at high risk of complications and mortality while on definitive long-term TPN. In these patients, the timing of early listing and transplantation could become life-saving, taking into account that mortality on the waiting list is still the highest for intestinal candidates. The development of simulation models or pre-transplant scoring systems could help in selecting patients based on potential outcome on TPN or with transplantation, and recent reports from high-volume centers identify few underlying pathologic conditions and some TPN complications as at higher risk of increased morbidity and mortality. A pre-emptive transplant could be used as a rehabilitative procedure in a well-selected case-by-case scenario, among TPN patients at risk of liver failure, repeated central line infections, mesenteric infarction, short bowel syndrome (SBS) <50 cm or with end stoma, congenital mucosal disease, desmoid tumors: These conditions must be carefully evaluated, not to underestimate the clinical stage nor to over-estimate the impact of a temporary situation. At the present time, diseases with a variable and unpredictable course, such as intestinal dysmotility disorders, or quality of life and financial issues are still far from being considered as indications for a pre-emptive transplant.

The Ethics of Organ Tourism: Role Morality and Organ Transplantation.

Organ tourism occurs when individuals in countries with existing organ transplant procedures, such as the United States, are unable to procure an organ by using those transplant procedures in enough time to save their life. In this paper, I am concerned with the following question: When organ tourists return to the United States and need another transplant, do US transplant physicians have an obligation to place them on a transplant list? I argue that transplant physicians have a duty not to relist organ tourists. Specifically, I contend that we should locate physicians' duties in these cases within the new role of "transplant physician." This role results from transplant physicians' participation in a system that depends on organ donors' voluntary act of donation.