4.1 Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Kidney Transplantation From DCD in Italy

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 46, 期 10, 页码 3289-3296

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.09.146

关键词

-

资金

  1. Regions Lombardia, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Kidney transplantation represents the best therapeutic option for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), providing the best outcomes for survival, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. To increase kidney donations, in 2007, the Italian IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation in Pavia designed and conducted Programma Alba, a protocol for organ donation after cardiac death (DCD). This study evaluated the costs and health outcomes of DCD transplantation and in all types of transplants compared with current clinical practice. Patients and Methods. A Markov-based model was used to assess costs and health outcomes for new ESRD patients for 2008 to 2013. A health care founder perspective was used. Data sources were the Italian National Institute of Statistics and the Lombardy Registry of Dialysis and Transplantation. A microcosting analysis was performed to calculate costs related to clinical pathways for DCD. We assessed costs, survival, quality-adjusted survival, and cost-effectiveness. Findings. Changing the actual practice pattern for new patients with ESRD and increasing the availability of kidneys from DCD to 10 extra transplants per year will induce an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of (sic)4255. Increases in transplantation to reach an extra 10% by transplant type would result in reduced costs and increased patient survival and quality of life compared with the current scenario. Interpretation. Our data show that increasing DCD transplants would result in a cost-effective policy to expand the kidney donor pool compared with current ESRD treatment patterns. Italian policies should make an effort to increase transplant rates to optimize cost-effectiveness in ESRD service supply.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据