ArticlePloS one2025
Early economic evaluation of chelation therapy in kidney transplant recipients with high-normal lead.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKidney transplant recipients (KTR) with high-normal lead have a higher risk of graft failure (GF). Clinically, chelation therapy using meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) removes lead. Despite the proposal that chelation therapy can prevent GF through lead removal, evidence is lacking. To guide research efforts, we conducted an early economic evaluation, aiming to explore the economic feasibility of screening for and implementing chelation therapy with oral DMSA for high-normal plasma lead concentrations in KTR (i.e., the intervention) compared to standard of care.
methodsA Markov model simulated the life course of 10,000 KTR in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. Transition probabilities were estimated using the data from TransplantLines Food and Nutrition Biobank and Cohort study. Costs and utilities were sourced from publications and public data. Model robustness was investigated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Various administration strategies were tested. Five-year costs were calculated from a healthcare payer's perspective. Value of information was assessed.
resultsThe intervention was cost-saving and improved health, leading to a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The result was most sensitive to transition probabilities (led by GF, followed by death with functioning graft and after graft failure). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 60%. Chelation strategies did not affect the result. The intervention applied to the Dutch KTR population could save €27 million in the initial five years. Further research is desirable if the cost of obtaining perfect information on GF survival is approximately below €4,000/KTR (all uncertainties under €5,000/KTR).
conclusionThe cost-effectiveness of the intervention is robust in KTR, except when considering the uncertainties around (graft) survival probabilities. Applying chelation therapy in the new setting we studied holds significant potential. However, trials that systematically assess the efficacy, administration strategies, and impacts on survival are crucial in updating the current evaluation and informing policies.
Indexed as
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.