Trial emulation and survival analysis for disease incidence registers: A case study on the causal effect of pre-emptive kidney transplantation

When drawing causal inference from observed data, failure time outcomes present additional challenges of censoring often combined with other missing data patterns. In this article, we follow incident cases of end‐stage renal disease to examine the effect on all‐cause mortality of starting treatment with transplant, so‐called pre‐emptive kidney transplantation, vs starting with dialysis possibly followed by delayed transplantation. The question is relatively simple: which start‐off treatment is expected to bring the best survival for a target population? To address it, we emulate a target trial drawing on the long term Swedish Renal Registry, where a growing common set of baseline covariates was measured nationwide. Several lessons are learned which pertain to long term disease registers more generally. With characteristics of cases and versions of treatment evolving over time, informative censoring is already introduced in unadjusted Kaplan‐Meier curves. This leads to misrepresented survival chances in observed treatment groups. The resulting biased treatment association may be aggravated upon implementing IPW for treatment. Aware of additional challenges, we further recall how similar studies to date have selected patients into treatment groups based on events occurring post treatment initiation. Our study reveals the dramatic impact of resulting immortal time bias combined with other typical features of long‐term incident disease registers, including missing covariates during the early phases of the register. We discuss feasible ways of accommodating these features when targeting relevant estimands, and demonstrate how more than one causal question can be answered relying on the no unmeasured baseline confounders assumption.

Israeli Medical Experts’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation

Medical advancement has increased the confidence in successful organ transplants in end-stage patients. As the waitlist of organ demand is multiplying, the organ allocation process is becoming more crucial. In this situation, a transparent and efficient organ allocation policy is required. This study evaluates the preferences of medical experts to substantial factors for allocating organs in different hypothetical scenarios. Twenty-five medical professionals with a significant role in organ allocation were interviewed individually. The interview questionnaire comprised demographic information, organ donation status, important organ allocation factors, public preference knowledge, and experts’ preferences in different hypothetical scenarios. Most medical experts rated the waiting time and prognosis as the most important, while the next of kin donor status and care and contribution to the well-being of others were the least important factors for organ allocation. In expert opinion, medical experts significantly considered public preferences for organ allocation in making their decisions. Altogether, experts prioritized waiting time over successful transplant, age, and donor status in the hypothetical scenarios. In parallel, less chance of finding another organ, donor status, and successful transplant were prioritized over age. Medical experts are the key stakeholders; therefore, their opinions are substantial in formulating an organ allocation policy.

How Should Deceased Donor Organs Be Allocated? The Patient's Perspective Derived from Semi-Structured Interviews

PURPOSE

The gap between the supply and demand for deceased donor organs is increasing worldwide, while patients on waiting lists for organ transplantation die. This situation requires ethical donor organ allocation rules. The patients' perspective on donor organ allocation rules offers a highly relevant and unique perspective that may differ from the perspectives of physicians and the general public.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with the regional group coordinators of the federal self-help organization for organ transplanted patients and their relatives in Germany in early 2021. Twelve interviews were conducted with patients and relatives of transplantation patients who received transplants for the affected organs including the lungs, heart, kidney, and liver. Transcripts were analyzed using the deductive framework method which was based on an earlier study. All criteria were reported following the COREQ statement.

RESULTS

Participants emphasized aspects of "medical urgency" and "effectiveness/benefit" of transplantation and associated trade-offs as well as the recipient's responsibility for organ failure ("own fault"), the appreciation for the gifted graft and the patient's capability of taking care of it ("appreciation/responsibility"). Patients acknowledged that urgent patients should be prioritized and they showed a clear preference toward allocation rules that strive to maximize both the life years and quality of life gained by transplantation.

CONCLUSION

The patients' perspective is unique in that patients agree on certain rules for allocation and share many preferences, but also have a hard time finding clear cutoff points when considering selecting a participant for allocation. Patient representatives should therefore be consulted in the debate on donor organ allocation rules.

'As a surgeon, I am obliged to every single patient': evaluation of focus group discussions with transplantation physicians on the allocation of donor organs

INTRODUCTION

Organ transplantation is the last resort for many patients. The ubiquitous shortage of suitable donor organs raises the question of best-justifiable allocation worldwide. This study investigates how physicians would allocate donor organs.

METHODS

Focus group discussions with a total of 12 transplant surgeons and 2 other transplant-related physicians were held at the annual conference of the German Transplantation Society (Oct 2019). Three groups discussed aspects of 'egalitarianism', 'effectiveness/benefit', 'medical urgency', 'own fault', 'medical background' and 'socio-demographic status'.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

It was observed that physicians often find themselves confronted with conflicts between (a) trying to advocate for their individual patients versus (b) seeing the systemic perspective and understanding the global impact of their decisions at the same time. The groups agreed that due to the current shortage of donor organs in the German allocation system, transplanted patients are often too sick at the point of transplantation and that a better balance between urgency and effectiveness is needed. The aspects of 'effectiveness' and 'urgency' were identified as the most challenging issues and thus were the main focus of debate. The dilemmas physicians find themselves in become increasingly severe, the larger the shortage of suitable donor organs is.

An evaluation of the current status of kidney transplant in terms of the type of receipt among Iranian patients

Introduction

With the increasing prevalence and incidence of chronic renal failure leading to advanced kidney disease (ESRD), the use of renal transplant therapy is increasing globally. The aim of this study was to determine the status of kidney transplant in patients during a period of 4–5 years.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective, analytical study, patients undergoing renal transplant at one of the hospitals in northern Iran were studied. The data was collected using a checklist assessing the required information, including the age, sex, place of residence, source of the kidney for transplant (living related, living non-related, deceased), kidney receiving method (donated, purchased), and wait time for a kidney transplant.

Results

A total of 228 patients were included in the study, of which 73.7% were male and 26.3% were female. The average wait time for kidney transplant was 386.22 days. The mean age of patients was 32.7 ± 10.7 years. In addition, living non-related (66.2%) and deceased (14%) were the most and least frequent sources of kidney transplant, respectively. Moreover, 51.8% of all transplanted kidneys were purchased.

Conclusion

Over the past 5 years, there has been a decrease in wait time for kidney transplant in Rasht, Iran. Factors, such as being female, lower age, and living in urban areas, are related to a shorter wait time for kidney transplant. The most common types of kidney transplant are from non-related donors and purchased.

Public, medical professionals' and patients' preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments

INTRODUCTION

Organ transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with severe organ failure. Nevertheless, donor organs are a scarce resource resulting in a large mismatch between supply and demand. Therefore, priority-setting leads to the dilemma of how these scarce organs should be allocated and who should be considered eligible to receive a suitable organ. In order to improve the supply-demand mismatch in transplantation medicine, this study explores preferences of different stakeholders (general public, medical professionals and patients) for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation in Germany. The aims are (1) to determine criteria and preferences, which are relevant for the allocation of scarce donor organs and (2) to compare the results between the three target groups to derive strategies for health policy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We outline the study protocol for discrete choice experiments, where respondents are presented with different choices including attributes with varied attribute levels. They were asked to choose between these choice sets. First, systematic reviews will be conducted to identify the state of art. Subsequently, focus group discussions with the public and patients as well as expert interviews with medical professionals will follow to establish the attributes that are going to be included in the experiments and to verify the results of the systematic reviews. Using this qualitative exploratory work, discrete choice studies will be designed to quantitatively assess preferences. We will use a D-efficient fractional factorial design to survey a total sample of 600 respondents according to the public, medical professionals and patients each. Multinomial conditional logit model and latent class model will be analysed to estimate the final results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received Ethics Approval from the Hannover Medical School Human Ethics Committee (Vote number: 7921_BO_K_2018). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, workshops with stakeholders and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Advancing methods for health priority setting practice through the contribution of systems theory: Lessons from a case study in Ethiopia

Setting priorities for health services is a complex and value laden process. Over the past twenty years, there has been considerable scholarly attention paid to strengthening fairness and legitimacy using the prominent ethical framework, Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R). A variety of case studies applying A4R have advanced our conceptual understanding of procedural fairness, and have highlighted the significance of context through its application. There is a paucity of research, however, that rigorously examines how and to what extent context influences health priority setting processes and the establishment of procedural fairness. We argue here that to study context rigorously requires taking a holistic view of the system by examining the dynamics and interrelationships within it. Using the Transformative Systems Change Framework (TSCF), this investigation sought to examine the influence of system factors on priority setting practice and procedural fairness. A qualitative case study of Ethiopian district health planning was undertaken in 2010 and 2011. Methods included 58 qualitative interviews with decision makers, participant observation, and document analysis. Data analysis followed in three phases: i) an inductive analysis of district health priority setting to highlight experiences across each of the three districts selected, ii) deductive analysis applying A4R and the TSCF independently; and iii) a synthesis of concepts of priority setting practice and procedural fairness within a broader, theoretical understanding of the system. Through the application of the TSCF, a nuanced understanding of priority setting practice is revealed that situates this process within a system of interdependent components that include: norms, operations, regulations, and resources. This paper offers a practical guide attuned to system features influencing the design, implementation, and sustainability of greater fairness in health priority setting practice.

Implementing priority setting frameworks: Insights from leading researchers

In spite of a substantial literature developing frameworks for policymakers to use in resource allocation decisions in healthcare, there remains limited published work reporting on the implementation or evaluation of such frameworks in practice. This paper presents findings of a targeted survey of 18 leading researchers around the implementation and evaluation of priority-setting exercises. Approximately one third of respondents knew of situations where recommendations of priority-setting exercises had been implemented, one third knew that recommendations had not been implemented and the final third responded that they did not know whether recommendations had been adopted. The lack of evidence linking the implementation of priority-setting recommendations to equity and efficiency outcomes was highlighted by all respondents. Features identified as facilitating successful implementation of priority-setting recommendations included having a climate ready to accept priority-setting, good leadership or a 'champion' for the priority-setting process and having a health economist to guide the process. Successful disinvestment was very uncommon in the experience of the researchers surveyed. Recommendations emerging from Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis exercises appeared to be more widely implemented than those coming from alternative processes. Identifying if the process was repeated following the initial process was suggested as a means to measure success.