The organ procurement costs of expanding deceased donor organ acceptance criteria: Evidence from a cost function model

The Medical Costs of Determining Eligibility and Waiting for a Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Recent efforts to increase access to kidney transplant (KTx) in the United States include increasing referrals to transplant programs, leading to more pretransplant services. Transplant programs reconcile the costs of these services through the Organ Acquisition Cost Center (OACC).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the costs associated with pretransplant services by applying microeconomic methods to OACC costs reported by transplant hospitals.

RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES

For all US adult kidney transplant hospitals from 2013 through 2018 (n=193), we crosslinked the total OACC costs (at the hospital-fiscal year level) to proxy measures of volumes of pretransplant services. We used a multiple-output cost function, regressing total OACC costs against proxy measures for volumes of pretransplant services and adjusting for patient characteristics, to calculate the marginal cost of each pretransplant service.

RESULTS

Over 1015 adult hospital-years, median OACC costs attributable to the pretransplant services were $5 million. Marginal costs for the pretransplant services were: initial transplant evaluation, $9k per waitlist addition; waitlist management, $2k per patient-year on the waitlist; deceased donor offer management, $1k per offer; living donor evaluation, procurement and follow-up: $26k per living donor. Longer time on dialysis among patients added to the waitlist was associated with higher OACC costs at the transplant hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve the policy goals of more access to KTx, sufficient funding is needed to support the increase in volume of pretransplant services. Future studies should assess the relative value of each service and explore ways to enhance efficiency.

The Spread Pattern of New Practice in Liver Transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Introducing new liver transplantation (LT) practices, like unconventional donor use, incurs higher costs, making evaluation of their prognostic justification crucial. This study reexamines the spread pattern of new LT practices and its prognosis across the United States.

METHODS

The study investigated the spread pattern of new practices using the UNOS database (2014-2023). Practices included LT for hepatitis B/C (HBV/HCV) nonviremic recipients with viremic donors, LT for COVID-19-positive recipients, and LT using onsite machine perfusion (OMP). One year post-LT patient and graft survival were also evaluated.

RESULTS

LTs using HBV/HCV donors were common in the East, while LTs for COVID-19 recipients and those using OMP started predominantly in California, Arizona, Texas, and the Northeast. K-means cluster analysis identified three adoption groups: facilities with rapid, slow, and minimal adoption rates. Rapid adoption occurred mainly in high-volume centers, followed by a gradual increase in middle-volume centers, with little increase in low-volume centers. The current spread patterns did not significantly affect patient survival. Specifically, for LTs with HCV donors or COVID-19 recipients, patient and graft survivals in the rapid-increasing group was comparable to others. In LTs involving OMP, the rapid- or slow-increasing groups tended to have better patient survival (p = 0.05) and significantly improved graft survival rates (p = 0.02). Facilities adopting new practices often overlap across different practices.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis revealed three distinct adoption groups across all practices, correlating the adoption aggressiveness with LT volume in centers. Aggressive adoption of new practices did not compromise patient and graft survivals, supporting the current strategy. Understanding historical trends could predict the rise in future LT cases with new practices, aiding in resource distribution.

Outcomes in organ transplants from donors with melanoma: a systematic review

Melanoma transmitted through organ transplantation is an increasingly reported event. Immunosuppression increases the risk of melanoma; however, transmission of malignancy from transplanted organs is a distinct etiology of melanoma occurrence. The risk of transmission of melanoma from an organ donor with melanoma has yet to be determined. The authors aimed to investigate this phenomenon by reviewing the outcomes of patients that received organs from donors with melanoma. A systematic literature review was conducted with emphasis on identifying organ donors with known histories of melanoma and reported information regarding recipients of their organs. The databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and JBI EBP were searched in January 2023. Search terms included "melanoma," terms for solid organs, "donor," "transplant," "transmission," and their variations as well as terms related to temporal relations. Inclusion criteria were articles that stated outcomes in organ recipients from donors that had a diagnosis of melanoma either pretransplant or postmortem. Reference lists of selected articles were hand searched for further studies. A total of 232 articles were identified from the search parameters. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 articles were selected. Hand searching the references of these articles yielded four additional articles. Of the 75 organ recipients that received organs from donors with known melanoma, 43 developed melanoma. While a definitive quantitative risk cannot be ascertained based on our review, the numerous reported cases of melanoma in organ recipients from donors that have melanoma should still be considered by clinicians.

MiR-20a-5p alleviates kidney ischemia/reperfusion injury by targeting ACSL4-dependent ferroptosis

Ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is prone to occur after kidney transplantation, leading to delayed graft function (DGF). MicroRNAs play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of ischemia/reperfusion-induced acute kidney injury, and miR-20a-5p was found to be the most significantly upregulated gene in a DGF patient cohort. However, the roles of microRNAs in transplanted kidneys remain largely unknown. In this study, we found that miR-20a-5p was upregulated in the kidneys of acute kidney injury mice and in patients with DGF. We identified early growth response-1 as a critical upstream target and verified the binding of early growth response-1 to a predicted sequence in the promoter region of the miR-20a-5p gene. Functionally, the miR-20a-5p mimic attenuated IRI and postischemic renal fibrosis, whereas the miR-20a-5p inhibitor delivery aggravated IRI and fibrosis. Importantly, delivery of the miR-20a-5p mimic or inhibitor in the donor kidneys attenuated or aggravated renal loss and structural damage in cold storage transplantation injury. Furthermore, our study identified miR-20a-5p as a negative regulator of acyl-CoA synthetase long-chain family member 4 (ACSL4) by targeting the 3' untranslated region of ACSL4 mRNA, thereby inhibiting ACSL4-dependent ferroptosis. Our results suggest a potential therapeutic application of miR-20a-5p in kidney transplantation through the inhibition of ACSL4-dependent ferroptosis.

Preemptive Living-Related Kidney Transplantation Is a Cost-Saving Strategy Compared With Post-dialysis Kidney Transplantation in Thailand

Background

Compared with other kidney replacement therapies, preemptive kidney transplantation (KT) provides better clinical outcomes, reduces mortality, and improves the quality of life of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, evidence related to the cost-effectiveness of preemptive living-related KT (LRKT) is limited, especially in low- and middle-income countries, such as Thailand. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of LRKT with those of non-preemptive KT strategies.

Methods

Cost and clinical data were obtained from adult patients who underwent KT at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand. A decision tree and Markov model were used to evaluate and compare the lifetime costs and health-related outcomes of LRKT with those of 2 KT strategies: non-preemptive LRKT and non-preemptive deceased donor KT (DDKT). The model’s input parameters were sourced from the hospital’s database and a systematic review. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Costs are reported in 2020 United States dollars (USD). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Of 140 enrolled KT patients, 40 were preemptive LRKT recipients, 50 were non-preemptive LRKT recipients, and the rest were DDKT recipients. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic data, complications, or rejection rates of the three groups of patients. The average costs per life year gained were $10,647 (preemptive LRKT), $11,708 (non-preemptive LRKT), and $11,486 (DDKT). The QALY gained of the preemptive option was 0.47 compared with the non-preemptive strategies. Preemptive LRKT was the best-buy strategy. The sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust. Within all varied ranges of parameters, preemptive LRKT remained cost-saving. The probability of preemptive LRKT being cost-saving was 79.4%. Compared with non-preemptive DDKT, non-preemptive LRKT was not cost-effective at the current Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of $5113/QALY gained.

Conclusions

Preemptive LRKT is a cost-saving strategy compared with non-preemptive KT strategies. Our findings should be considered during evidence-based policy development to promote preemptive LRKT among adults with ESKD in Thailand.