Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:21:17.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Renal Transplantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Ingvar Karlberg  and
Gudrun Nyberg
Ingvar Karlberg
Affiliation:
Nordic School of Public Health
Gudrun Nyberg
Affiliation:
University of Göoteborg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study analyzes opportunity costs for the treatment of end-stage renal disease. Kidney transplantation remains the most cost-effective treatment for uremia and is one of the most cost-effective technologies in health care. Improved survival of grafts and increased numbers of transplants have the potential to reduce costs for dialysis programs. To support organ donation activities, the public and concerned health professionals should be informed about the opportunity cost of “unnecessary” dialysis. These resources could be reallocated from dialysis to other programs. Among patients in dialysis, a more common use of chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis instead of institution-based hemodialysis would greatly increase cost-utility and further reduce the program costs of renal replacement therapy.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Summer 1995 , pp. 611 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ahlmén, J.Prestationberäkning och ekonomi vid hemodialys (Abstract in English, Calculations of productivity and economy of haemodialysis). Nordisk Medicin, 1989, 104, 145–46.Google Scholar
2.Ahlmen, J., & Kjellstrand, C. (eds.) Aspects of quality of life in renal replacement therapy and endstage renal disease. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, 1990, (Suppl.) 131.Google Scholar
3.Banta, D., Karlberg, I., & Scherstén, T.Organtransplantationer. Samband mellan volym, resultat och kostnader. Stockholm: The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989.Google Scholar
4.Bonair, A.Conceptual and empirical issues of technological changes in the health care sector. Innovations and diffusion of hemodialysis and renal transplantation. University of Linköping, Sweden, 1992.Google Scholar
5.de Charo, F. Th., Ramsteijn, P. G., Morssink, J. P. M., & Tjandra, Y. I.Statistical projections and predictions modelling using data of the Dutch ESRD-registry. Paper presented at the EDTA Congress, Vienna, 1990.Google Scholar
6.Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987.Google Scholar
7.Fetter, R. B. (ed.) DRGs: Their design and development. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1991.Google Scholar
8.Foster, W. R., & Burton, B. T.Technology assessment applied to liver transplantation in adults. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Frisk, B., Persson, H., Wedel, N., et al. Study of 172 patients at 10 to 21 years after renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings, 1987, 19, 3769–71.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Johannesson, M.On the discounting of gained life-years in cost-effectiveness analysis. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 359–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Karlberg, I.Cost analysis of alternative treatments in end stage renal disease. Transplantation Proceedings, 1992, 24, 382.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Karlberg, I., Berglin, E., Brynger, H., et al. Organtransplantationer: En översikt. The Swedish Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Report, 1990, 9.Google Scholar
13.Karlberg, I., & Scherstein, T.Human organ transplantation. World Health Forum, 1989, 10, 228–34.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Leivestad, T., Berger, L., & Thorsby, E.Beneficial effect of DR matching on cadaveric renal graft survival in Scandiatransplant. Transplantation Proceedings, 1992, 24, 2447–48.Google Scholar
15.Lindholm, A., Albrechtsen, D., Tufveson, G., et al. A randomized trial of cyclosporine and prednisolone versus cyclosporine, azathioprine, and prednisolone in primary cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation, 1992, 4, 624–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Mathieu, D. (ed.) Organ substitution technology: Ethical, legal, and public policy issues. Boulder-London: Westview Press, 1988.Google Scholar
17.Merrill, J. P., Murray, J. E., Harrison, J. H., et al. Successful homotransplantation of the human kidney between identical twins. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1956, 160, 277–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Nyberg, G., Karlberg, I., Svalander, C., et al. Renal transplantation in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: Increased risk of early graft loss. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, 1990, 24, 307–13.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Nyberg, G., Nilsson, B., Hallste, G., et al. Renal transplantation in elderly patients: Survival and complications. Transplantation Proceedings, 1993, 25, 1062–63.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Nyberg, G., Svalander, C., Blohmé, I., et al. Kidneys transplanted in Göteborg: 1985 to 1990. Transplantation Proceedings, 1992, 24, 326–27.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Persson, N. Kostnader och ersättningssystem vid organdonation (Cost and payment system for organ donation surgery). 1992. Prepared for the Swedish Transplantation Society.Google Scholar
22.Phelps, C. E., & Mushlin, I. A.On the near equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1991, 7, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Scherstén, T., Brynger, H., Karlberg, I., & Jonsson, E.Cost-effectiveness analysis of organ transplantation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 545–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Sesso, R., Eisenberg, J. M., Stabile, C., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of end-stage renal disease in Brazil. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 107–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Tesi, R. J., Elkhammas, E. A., Davies, E. A., et al. Renal transplantation in older people. Lancet, 1994, 343, 461–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Vanrenterghem, Y., Waer, M., Christiaens, R., et al. Long-term results after cadaver kidney transplantation have also improved over the last two decades. Transplantation Proceedings, 1991, 23, 1265–66.Google ScholarPubMed
27.Williams, A.Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 326–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Xiao, X., Li, Y., Ao, J., & Chen, Y.Analysis of prognostic factors affecting renal allograft survival. Transplant International, 1992, 5, 226–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed