The economics and ethics of kidney transplantation: Perspectives in 2006

Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 593-598

  Kim, S Joseph ^a,b   Gordon, Elisa J ^c   Powe, Neil R ^a,b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; Graft survival; Health economics; Kidney transplantation

Indexed keywords

ANTIMETABOLITE; BASILIXIMAB; CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR; CORTICOSTEROID; CYCLOSPORIN A; DACLIZUMAB; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; RAPAMYCIN; TACROLIMUS; THYMOCYTE ANTIBODY;

CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; GRAFT INFECTION; GRAFT RECIPIENT; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY DONOR; KIDNEY FAILURE; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LIVING DONOR; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICARE; PNEUMONIA; POLYOMA VIRUS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT;

EID: 33750220442     PISSN: 10624821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mnh.0000247493.70129.91     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Sayegh MH, Carpenter CB. Transplantation 50 years later: progress, challenges, and promises. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:2761-2766.
2. Kernick DP. Introduction to health economics for the medical practitioner. Postgrad Med J 2003; 79:147-150.
3. O'Brien BJ, Heyland D, Richardson WS, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1997; 277:1802-1806.
4. Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O'Brien BJ, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1997; 277:1552-1557.
5. Whiting JF. Standards for economic and quality of life studies in transplantation. Transplantation 2000; 70:1115-1121.
6. Neymark N. Techniques for health economics analysis in oncology: Part 2. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 1999; 30:13-24.
7. Neymark N. Techniques for health economics analysis in oncology: Part 1. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 1999; 30:1-11.
8. McFarlane PA, Bayoumi AM. Acceptance and rejection: cost-effectiveness and the working nephrologist. Kidney Int 2004; 66:1735-1741.
9. Hardinger KL, Bohl DL, Schnitzler MA, et al. A randomized, prospective, pharmacoeconomic trial of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in combination with thymoglobulin in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2005; 80:41-46. This cost analysis quantifies the total drug expenditures associated with the two main calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppressive regimens in the context of a randomized controlled trial.
10. McEwan P, Dixon S, Baboolal K, et al. Evaluation of the cost effectiveness of sirolimus versus tacrolimus for immunosuppression following renal transplantation in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24:67-79. This study is a formal cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a sirolimus-based vs. tacrolimus-based drug regimen using data from clinical trials and observational studies.
11. McEwan P, Baboolal K, Conway P, Currie CJ. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of sirolimus versus cyclosporin for immunosuppression after renal transplantation in the United Kingdom. Clin Ther 2005; 27:1834-1846. This study was the initial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing cyclosporin microemulsion to sirolimus by the authors of the previous paper.
12. Kaplan B, Schold J, Meier-Kriesche HU. Poor predictive value of serum creatinine for renal allograft loss. Am J Transplant 2003; 3:1560-1565.
13. Pham K, Kraft K, Thielke J, et al. Limited-dose Daclizumab versus Basiliximab: a comparison of cost and efficacy in preventing acute rejection. Transplant Proc 2005; 37:899-902. This is an interesting observational study in a single center that compared the direct drug costs and efficacy of a limited dose and a standard dose regimen of two IL-2 receptor blockers.
14. Kutinova A, Woodward RS, Ricci JF, Brennan DC. The incidence and costs of sepsis and pneumonia before and after renal transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant 2006; 6:129-139. This study comprehensively assesses the incidence, costs, and outcomes of two important and relatively common posttransplant complications.
15. Kiberd BA. Screening to prevent polyoma virus nephropathy: a medical decision analysis. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:2410-2416. This well performed decision analysis highlights the potential impact of screening for Polyomavirus nephropathy on the cost per quality-adjusted life year after kidney transplantation.
16. Mutinga N, Brennan DC, Schnitzler MA. Consequences of eliminating HLA-B in deceased donor kidney allocation to increase minority transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:1090-1098. The impact of eliminating HLA-B in deceased donor kidney allocation on the economic and quality-of-life outcomes of kidney transplantation is explored in this important study. A moderate increase in donation rates is found to be more cost-effective for increasing minority transplants than the new allocation scheme.
17. Meier-Kriesche HU, Schold JD, Gaston RS, et al. Kidneys from deceased donors: maximizing the value of a scarce resource. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:1725-1730. An elegant study that provides important information on the potential consequences of donor-recipient age-matching on the number of graft-years saved and reducing the overall costs of kidney transplantation.
18. Roberts JP, Wolfe RA, Bragg-Gresham JL, et al. Effect of changing the priority for HLA matching on the rates and outcomes of kidney transplantation in minority groups. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:545-551.
19. Oostenbrink JB, Kok ET, Verheul RM. A comparative study of resource use and costs of renal, liver and heart transplantation. Transpl Int 2005; 18:437-443. This is a costing study of the comparative expenditures between solid-organ transplant programs in one European academic center.
20. Truog RD. The ethics of organ donation by living donors. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:444-446.
21. Steiner R. How should we ethically select living kidney donors when they all are at risk? Am J Transplant 2005; 5:1172-1173.
22. Ingelfinger JR. Risks and benefits to the living donor. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:447-449.
23. Gilbert JC, Brigham L, Batty DS Jr, Veatch RM. The nondirected living donor program: a model for cooperative donation, recovery and allocation of living donor kidneys. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:167-174. This paper provides a detailed description of the early experience with a nondirected living donor program in seven Washington, DC transplant centers.
24. Jendrisak MD, Hong B, Shenoy S, et al. Altruistic living donors: evaluation for nondirected kidney or liver donation. Am J Transplant 2006; 6:115-120. The first 30 months' experience of a nondirected living kidney donor program involving two St. Louis kidney transplant centers.
25. Morrissey PE, Dube C, Gohh R, et al. Good Samaritan kidney donation. Transplantation 2005; 80:1369-1373. A single center experience in Rhode Island with nondirected living kidney donation and transplantation.
26. Hilhorst MT, Kranenburg LW, Zuidema W, et al. Altruistic living kidney donation challenges psychosocial research and policy: a response to previous articles. Transplantation 2005; 79:1470-1474. This is a well written paper on the methodologic challenges that face psychosocial researchers in the field of altruistic living kidney donation.
27. Hilhorst MT. Directed altruistic living organ donation: partial but not unfair. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 2005; 8:197-215. A thoughtful elaboration of the author's perspective on directed altruistic living organ donation.
28. Landolt MA, Henderson AJ, Gourlay W, et al. They talk the talk: surveying attitudes and judging behavior about living anonymous kidney donation. Transplantation 2003; 76:1437-1444.
29. Spital A. Should people who donate a kidney to a stranger be permitted to choose their recipients? Views of the United States public. Transplantation 2003; 76:1252-1256.
30. Spital A. Increasing the pool of transplantable kidneys through unrelated living donors and living donor paired exchanges. Semin Dial 2005; 18:469-473. A nice overview of living donor kidney transplantation and the controversy surrounding living kidney donor paired exchange.
31. Ross LF, Zenios S. Restricting living-donor-cadaver-donor exchanges to ensure that standard blood type O wait-list candidates benefit. Transplantation 2004; 78:641-646.
32. Zenios SA, Woodle ES, Ross LF. Primum non nocere: avoiding harm to vulnerable wait list candidates in an indirect kidney exchange. Transplantation 2001; 72:648-654.
33. Steinberg D. Exchanging kidneys: how much unfairness is justified by an extra kidney and who decides? Am J Kidney Dis 2004; 44:1115-1120.
34. Ackerman PD, Thistlethwaite JR Jr, Ross LF. Attitudes of minority patients with end-stage renal disease regarding ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges. Am J Transplant 2006; 6:83-88. This study empirically assesses the opinions of wait-listed dialysis patients on issues surrounding several methods of increasing the donor pool using living donors including ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges.
35. Israni AK, Halpern SD, Zink S, et al. Incentive models to increase living kidney donation: encouraging without coercing. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:15-20. This is a comprehensive paper on the pros and cons of various incentive models that may increase living kidney donation rates. Questions for future research into the ethical implications of these incentive models are also outlined.
36. Fehrman-Ekholm I, Duner F, Brink B, et al. No evidence of accelerated loss of kidney function in living kidney donors: results from a cross-sectional follow-up. Transplantation 2001; 72:444-449.
37. Fehrman-Ekholm I, Brink B, Ericsson C, et al. Kidney donors don't regret: follow-up of 370 donors in Stockholm since 1964. Transplantation 2000; 69:2067-2071.
38. Hippen BE. In defense of a regulated market in kidneys from living vendors. J Med Philos 2005; 30:593-626. Arguments for instituting a regulated market for living kidney vendors from a practicing transplant nephrologist.
39. Scheper-Hughes N. Kidney kin: inside the Transatlantic transplant trade. Harv Int Rev 2006; Winter: 62-65. This is a study of the experience of living kidney donors from developing countries using ethnographic research methods and a description of the Trans-Atlantic organ trade.
40. Gordon EJ. The ethics of Medicare policy: increasing transplant access and survival. DePaul Law Rev 2006; 55:1045-1066.
41. Stack AG, Martin DR. Association of patient autonomy with increased transplantation and survival among new dialysis patients in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 2005; 45:730-742. This is a registry analysis highlighting the association between perceived autonomy of dialysis patients and increased access to kidney transplantation.
42. Gordon EJ, Prohaska T, Siminoff LA, et al. Can focusing on self-care reduce disparities in kidney transplantation outcomes? Am J Kidney Dis 2005; 45:935-940. This paper suggests that promoting self-care activities in kidney transplant recipients may improve their outcomes and reduce disparities.
43. Ross LF. Ethical considerations related to pregnancy in transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1313-1316. The ethical dimensions surrounding the care of this growing population of transplant recipients are nicely reviewed in this report.