The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2021
Cost-effectiveness and system-wide impact of using Hepatitis C-viremic donors for heart transplant.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wayda Brian, Sandhu Alexander T, Parizo Justin, Teuteberg Jeffrey J, Khush Kiran K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The advent of direct-acting antiviral therapy for Hepatitis C (HCV) has made using HCV-viremic donors a viable strategy to address the donor shortage in heart transplantation. We employed a large-scale simulation to evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of using HCV-viremic donors for heart transplant.
METHODS: We simulated detailed histories from time of listing until death for the real-world cohort of all adults listed for heart transplant in the United States from July 2014 to June 2019 (n = 19,346). This population was imputed using historical data and captures "real-world" heterogeneity in geographic and clinical characteristics. We estimated the impact of an intervention in which all candidates accept HCV+ potential donors (n = 472) on transplant volume, waitlist outcomes, and lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
RESULTS: The intervention produced 232 more transplants, 132 fewer delistings due to deterioration, and 50 fewer waitlist deaths within this 5-year cohort and reduced wait times by 3% to 11% (varying by priority status). The intervention was cost-effective, adding an average of 0.08 QALYs per patient at a cost of $124 million ($81,892 per QALY). DAA therapy and HCV care combined account for 11% this cost, with the remainder due to higher costs of transplant procedures and routine post-transplant care. The impact on transplant volume varied by blood type and region and was correlated with donor-to-candidate ratio (ρ = 0.71).
CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting HCV+ donor hearts is likely to be cost-effective and improve waitlist outcomes, particularly in regions and subgroups experiencing high donor scarcity.
METHODS: We simulated detailed histories from time of listing until death for the real-world cohort of all adults listed for heart transplant in the United States from July 2014 to June 2019 (n = 19,346). This population was imputed using historical data and captures "real-world" heterogeneity in geographic and clinical characteristics. We estimated the impact of an intervention in which all candidates accept HCV+ potential donors (n = 472) on transplant volume, waitlist outcomes, and lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
RESULTS: The intervention produced 232 more transplants, 132 fewer delistings due to deterioration, and 50 fewer waitlist deaths within this 5-year cohort and reduced wait times by 3% to 11% (varying by priority status). The intervention was cost-effective, adding an average of 0.08 QALYs per patient at a cost of $124 million ($81,892 per QALY). DAA therapy and HCV care combined account for 11% this cost, with the remainder due to higher costs of transplant procedures and routine post-transplant care. The impact on transplant volume varied by blood type and region and was correlated with donor-to-candidate ratio (ρ = 0.71).
CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting HCV+ donor hearts is likely to be cost-effective and improve waitlist outcomes, particularly in regions and subgroups experiencing high donor scarcity.