Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Implementing a Dietary Intervention in Renal Transplant Recipients

Early economic evaluation of chelation therapy in kidney transplant recipients with high-normal lead

BACKGROUND

Kidney 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.

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

The 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).

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Assessing Global Kidney Nutrition Care

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Nutrition intervention is an essential component of kidney disease management. This study aimed to understand current global availability and capacity of kidney nutrition care services, interdisciplinary communication, and availability of oral nutrition supplements.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism (ISRNM), working in partnership with the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) Global Kidney Health Atlas Committee, developed this Global Kidney Nutrition Care Atlas. An electronic survey was administered among key kidney care stakeholders through 182 ISN-affiliated countries between July and September 2018.

RESULTS

Overall, 160 of 182 countries (88%) responded, of which 155 countries (97%) answered the survey items related to kidney nutrition care. Only 48% of the 155 countries have dietitians/renal dietitians to provide this specialized service. Dietary counseling, provided by a person trained in nutrition, was generally not available in 65% of low-/lower middle-income countries and "never" available in 23% of low-income countries. Forty-one percent of the countries did not provide formal assessment of nutrition status for kidney nutrition care. The availability of oral nutrition supplements varied globally and, mostly, were not freely available in low-/lower middle-income countries for both inpatient and outpatient settings. Dietitians and nephrologists only communicated "sometimes" on kidney nutrition care in ≥60% of countries globally.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey reveals significant gaps in global kidney nutrition care service capacity, availability, cost coverage, and deficiencies in interdisciplinary communication on kidney nutrition care delivery, especially in lower-income countries.