ArticleTransplantation direct2020
Financial Evaluation of Kidney Transplant With Hepatitis C Viremic Donors to Uninfected Recipients.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of High Kidney Donor Profile Index Hepatitis C Nucleic Acid Testing Positive Kidneys are Equivalent to Matched Hepatitis C Nucleic Acid Testing Negative Kidneys.Transplantation direct · 2025Article
- Survival Benefit of Solid-Organ Transplantation: 10-Year Update.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Clinical and Financial Implications of 2 Treatment Strategies for Donor-derived Hepatitis C Infections.Transplantation direct · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
methodsAn 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.
resultsIn 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.
conclusionsdHCV+ 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.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.