ABSTRACT
Screening for polyomavirus infection after kidney transplantation is recommended by clinical practice guidelines, but cost-effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain. The aim of this study was to estimate the incremental costs and benefits of routine screening for polyomavirus infection compared with no screening in kidney transplant recipients. Methods: Probabilistic Markov models were constructed to compare the health and economic benefits of routine screening for polyomavirus infection using real-time polymerase chain reaction assay. A series of 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to define the most influential variables in the model. Results: Monthly screening for 6 mo followed by 3 monthly screenings until 12 mo after transplant was dominant (lower costs and improved outcomes). Compared with no screening, the incremental benefits of screening were 0.294 life-years saved and 0.232 quality-adjusted life-years saved. Total savings from screening were $6986 Australian dollars ($5057 US dollars). The cost-effectiveness ratios were most sensitive to the costs of transplantation and dialysis, age of transplantation, prevalence of viremia, and probability of death in patients with a history of polyomavirus-associated nephropathy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that screening (compared with no screening) was the dominant strategy across all plausible ranges of transition probabilities. Conclusions: Screening for polyomavirus infections 1 year following transplantation appears to save money, improves survival, and improves quality of life in kidney transplant recipients.
ABSTRACT
Polyomavirus BK virus (BKPyV) infection is an important complication of kidney transplantation and allograft failure. The prevalence of viremia is 10%-15%, compared with BK-associated nephropathy (BKPyVAN) at 3%-5%. Given that there are no effective antiviral prophylaxis or treatment strategies for BKPyVAN, active screening to detect BKPyV viremia is recommended, particularly during the early posttransplant period. Immunosuppression reduction to allow viral clearance may avoid progression to severe and irreversible allograft damage. The frequency and duration of screening are highly variable between transplant centers because the evidence is reliant largely on observational data. While the primary treatment goals center on achieving viral clearance through immunosuppression reduction, prevention of subsequent acute rejection, premature graft loss, and return to dialysis remain as major challenges. Treatment strategies for BKPyV infection should be individualized to the recipient's underlying immunological risk and severity of the allograft infection. Efficacy data for adjuvant therapies including intravenous immunoglobulin and cidofovir are sparse. Future well-powered and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to inform evidence-based clinical practice for the management of BKPy infection.
