1
|
Przech S, Garg AX, Arnold JB, Barnieh L, Cuerden MS, Dipchand C, Feldman L, Gill JS, Karpinski M, Knoll G, Lok C, Miller M, Monroy M, Nguan C, Prasad GVR, Sarma S, Sontrop JM, Storsley L, Klarenbach S. Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2018; 29:2847-2857. [PMID: 30404908 DOI: 10.1681/asn.2018040398] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2018] [Accepted: 10/07/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Przech
- Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amit X Garg
- Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jennifer B Arnold
- Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lianne Barnieh
- Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Meaghan S Cuerden
- Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Christine Dipchand
- Division of Nephrology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Liane Feldman
- Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - John S Gill
- Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Martin Karpinski
- Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Greg Knoll
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Charmaine Lok
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Matthew Miller
- Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mauricio Monroy
- Department of Surgery, Foothills Medical Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Chris Nguan
- Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - G V Ramesh Prasad
- Division of Nephrology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and
| | - Sisira Sarma
- Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jessica M Sontrop
- Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Leroy Storsley
- Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Scott Klarenbach
- Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kute VB, Prasad N, Shah PR, Modi PR. Kidney exchange transplantation current status, an update and future perspectives. World J Transplant 2018; 8:52-60. [PMID: 29988896 PMCID: PMC6033740 DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v8.i3.52] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2017] [Revised: 01/25/2018] [Accepted: 03/07/2018] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Kidney exchange transplantation is well established modality to increase living donor kidney transplantation. Reasons for joining kidney exchange programs are ABO blood group incompatibility, immunological incompatibility (positive cross match or donor specific antibody), human leukocyte antigen (HLA) incompatibility (poor HLA matching), chronological incompatibility and financial incompatibility. Kidney exchange transplantation has evolved from the traditional simultaneous anonymous 2-way kidney exchange to more complex ways such as 3-way exchange, 4-way exchange, n-way exchange,compatible pair, non-simultaneous kidney exchange,non-simultaneous extended altruistic donor, never ending altruistic donor, kidney exchange combined with desensitization, kidney exchange combined with ABO incompatible kidney transplantation, acceptable mismatch transplant, use of A2 donor to O patients, living donor-deceased donor list exchange, domino chain, non-anonymous kidney exchange, single center, multicenter, regional, National, International and Global kidney exchange. Here we discuss recent advances in kidney exchanges such as International kidney exchange transplantation in a global environment, three categories of advanced donation program, deceased donors as a source of chain initiating kidneys, donor renege myth or reality, pros and cons of anonymity in developed world and (non-) anonymity in developing world, pros and cons of donor travel vs kidney transport, algorithm for management of incompatible donor-recipient pairs and pros and cons of Global kidney exchange. The participating transplant teams and donor-recipient pairs should make the decision by consensus about kidney donor travel vs kidney transport and anonymity vs non-anonymity in allocation as per local resources and logistics. Future of organ transplantation in resource-limited setting will be liver vs kidney exchange, a legitimate hope or utopia?
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek B Kute
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Centre, Dr Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad 380016, India
| | - Narayan Prasad
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, SGPGI, Lucknow 226014, India
| | - Pankaj R Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Centre, Dr Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad 380016, India
| | - Pranjal R Modi
- Department of Urology and transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Centre, Dr Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad 380016, India
| |
Collapse
|