Axelrod David A, Lentine Krista L, Balakrishnan Ramji, Chang Su-Hsin, Alhamad Terek, Xiao Huiling, Kasiske Bertran L, Bloom Roy D, Schnitzler Mark A
Department of Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Department of Medicine, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO.
Transplant Direct. 2020 Nov 10;6(12):e627. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001056. eCollection 2020 Dec.
Kidney transplantation with hepatitis C viremic (dHCV+) donors appears safe for recipients without HCV when accompanied by direct acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. However, US programs have been reluctant to embrace this approach due to concern about insurance coverage. While the cost of DAA treatment is currently offset by the reduction in waiting time, increased competition for dHCV+ organs may reduce this advantage. This analysis sought to demonstrate the financial benefit of dHCV+ transplant for third-party health insurers to expand coverage availability.
An economic analysis was developed using a Markov model for 2 decisions: first, to accept a dHCV+ organ versus wait for a dHCV uninfected organ; or second, accept a high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) (>85) organ versus wait for a better quality dHCV+ organ. The analysis used Medicare payments, historical survival data, cost report data, and an estimated cost of DAA of $29 874.
In the first analysis, using dHCV+ kidneys reduced the cost of end-stage kidney disease care if the wait for a dHCV uninfected organ exceeded 11.5 months. The financial breakeven point differed according to the cost of DAA treatment. In the second analysis, declining a high-KDPI organ in favor of a waiting dHCV+ organ was marginally clinically beneficial if waiting times were <12 months but not cost effective.
dHCV+ transplant appears to be economically and clinically advantageous compared with waiting for dHCV-uninfected transplant but should not replace high-KDPI transplant when appropriate. Despite the high cost of DAA therapy, health insurers benefit financially from dHCV+ transplant within 1 year.
对于未感染丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)的受者,接受来自丙型肝炎病毒血症(dHCV+)供者的肾移植并同时接受直接抗病毒药物(DAA)治疗似乎是安全的。然而,由于对保险覆盖范围的担忧,美国的相关项目一直不愿采用这种方法。虽然目前DAA治疗的费用因等待时间的减少而得到抵消,但对dHCV+器官的竞争加剧可能会削弱这一优势。本分析旨在证明dHCV+移植对第三方健康保险公司的经济效益,以扩大保险覆盖范围。
使用马尔可夫模型进行了一项经济分析,涉及两个决策:第一,接受dHCV+器官与等待未感染dHCV的器官;第二,接受高肾脏供者风险指数(KDPI)(>85)的器官与等待质量更好的dHCV+器官。该分析使用了医疗保险支付、历史生存数据、成本报告数据以及估计的DAA成本29874美元。
在第一项分析中,如果等待未感染dHCV的器官超过11.5个月,使用dHCV+肾脏可降低终末期肾病护理的成本。财务盈亏平衡点因DAA治疗的成本而异。在第二项分析中,如果等待时间<12个月,拒绝高KDPI器官而选择等待dHCV+器官在临床上有轻微益处,但不具有成本效益。
与等待未感染dHCV的移植相比,dHCV+移植在经济和临床方面似乎具有优势,但在适当的时候不应取代高KDPI移植。尽管DAA治疗成本高昂,但健康保险公司在1年内可从dHCV+移植中获得经济利益。