Equity-Efficiency Trade-offs Associated With Alternative Approaches to Deceased Donor Kidney Allocation: A Patient-level Simulation.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients waiting to receive a kidney transplant outstrips the supply of donor organs. We sought to quantify trade-offs associated with different approaches to deceased donor kidney allocation in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and access to transplantation. METHODS: An individual patient simulation model was developed to compare 5 different approaches to kidney allocation, including the 2006 UK National Kidney Allocation Scheme (NKAS) and a QALY maximization approach designed to maximize health gains from a limited supply of donor organs. We used various sources of patient-level data to develop multivariable regression models to predict survival, health state utilities, and costs. We simulated the allocation of kidneys from 2200 deceased donors to a waiting list of 5500 patients and produced estimates of total lifetime costs and QALYs for each allocation scheme. RESULTS: Among patients who received a transplant, the QALY maximization approach generated 48 045 QALYs and cost £681 million, while the 2006 NKAS generated 44 040 QALYs and cost £625 million. When also taking into consideration outcomes for patients who were not prioritized to receive a transplant, the 2006 NKAS produced higher total QALYs and costs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £110 741/QALY compared with the QALY maximization approach. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2006 NKAS, a QALY maximization approach makes more efficient use of deceased donor kidneys but reduces access to transplantation for older patients and results in greater inequity in the distribution of health gains between patients who receive a transplant and patients who remain on the waiting list.

Evidence-based criteria for the care and selection of blood donors, with some comments on the relationship to blood supply, and emphasis on the management of donation-induced iron depletion.

Blood Services, which, in the UK, spend over 0.5% of the NHS budget, are generally subject to quality, regulatory, economic and political authority. As only persons in good health should give blood, Services have refined donor selection criteria and aim to base them on evidence; but they also have to balance the number of donations collected with product demand. Applying selection criteria inevitably leads to deferrals, which donors experience very negatively. Compared with successful donors, even temporary deferrals reduce return rates significantly, especially of first attenders. In order to encourage donor return and sustain supplies, selection criteria should be optimal. However, a major tool for managing patients--evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs)--cannot apply to donor selection, so criteria have to be defined by alternatives, such as clinical studies, epidemiology and even what experts deem to be pathophysiologically feasible. The recommended volume of blood taken from each donor at each attendance (450 mL, which was based on old studies) was increased because of greater processing losses (buffy-coat derived platelets, leucofiltration etc.). Although faint rates and donation-induced iron depletion are reduced by lowering bleeding volume and bleeding less frequently, other optimizing strategies including iron supplementation have been trialled and could be enhanced by more RCTs. Better but more complex indicators of donor iron status than one-off Hb thresholds are possible. Regulators and decision-makers must encourage more studies. This review does not consider aphaeresis donors of blood components other than red cells in detail, or the prevention of transfusion-transmitted infections.