Martin Howell1, Germaine Wong, John Rose, Allison Tong, Jonathan C Craig, Kirsten Howard. 1. 1 Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia.2 Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.3 Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, NSW, Australia.4 Institute for Choice, University of South Australia Business School, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The care of kidney transplant recipients involves a balance between maximizing graft survival and serious adverse outcomes. This study aimed to quantify patients' preferences and trade-offs for important outcomes after transplantation. METHODS: A best-worst scaling survey, analyzed by multinomial-logit models, was used to calculate normalized preference scores (0, best; 1, worst), for varying years of graft duration and risk of dying before graft failure, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, infection, anxiety/depression, diarrhoea/nausea, and weight gain. Willingness to trade years of graft survival to minimize the risk of adverse outcomes was calculated. RESULTS: Ninety-three transplant recipients from 2 Australian transplant units and an on-line panel (aged 18-69 years (mean time since transplantation, 7 years) completed the survey. Graft loss at 1 year was the least desirable outcome (mean preference value, 0.0:95% confidence intervals, -0.05 to 0.05) and worse than a 100% risk of dying before graft loss (0.17: 0.12-0.23). Graft duration of 5 years had the same preference scores (ie, as bad) as the maximum risk of all adverse outcomes including a 100% risk of dying before graft failure. To achieve zero risk of cancer, dying, and cardiovascular disease participants were only willing to trade 3.1(2.1 to 4.7), 1.7(1.1 to 2.5), and 1.2(0.8 to 1.8) years of graft survival, respectively, and less than 1 year for all other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant recipients regarded graft loss as worse than death and showed minimal willingness to trade a reduction in this outcome with an improvement in any other outcome.
BACKGROUND: The care of kidney transplant recipients involves a balance between maximizing graft survival and serious adverse outcomes. This study aimed to quantify patients' preferences and trade-offs for important outcomes after transplantation. METHODS: A best-worst scaling survey, analyzed by multinomial-logit models, was used to calculate normalized preference scores (0, best; 1, worst), for varying years of graft duration and risk of dying before graft failure, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, infection, anxiety/depression, diarrhoea/nausea, and weight gain. Willingness to trade years of graft survival to minimize the risk of adverse outcomes was calculated. RESULTS: Ninety-three transplant recipients from 2 Australian transplant units and an on-line panel (aged 18-69 years (mean time since transplantation, 7 years) completed the survey. Graft loss at 1 year was the least desirable outcome (mean preference value, 0.0:95% confidence intervals, -0.05 to 0.05) and worse than a 100% risk of dying before graft loss (0.17: 0.12-0.23). Graft duration of 5 years had the same preference scores (ie, as bad) as the maximum risk of all adverse outcomes including a 100% risk of dying before graft failure. To achieve zero risk of cancer, dying, and cardiovascular diseaseparticipants were only willing to trade 3.1(2.1 to 4.7), 1.7(1.1 to 2.5), and 1.2(0.8 to 1.8) years of graft survival, respectively, and less than 1 year for all other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant recipients regarded graft loss as worse than death and showed minimal willingness to trade a reduction in this outcome with an improvement in any other outcome.
Authors: Eric Nolley; Jessica Fleck; Dio Kavalieratos; Mary Amanda Dew; Daniel Dilling; Rebecca Colman; Maria M Crespo; Hiliary Goldberg; Steven Hays; Ramsey Hachem; Erika Lease; James Lee; John Reynolds; Matthew Morrell; Yael Schenker Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Camilo G Sotomayor; Nicolas I Bustos; Manuela Yepes-Calderon; Diego Arauna; Martin H de Borst; Stefan P Berger; Ramón Rodrigo; Robin P F Dullaart; Gerjan J Navis; Stephan J L Bakker Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) Date: 2021-04-21
Authors: Emily L Tucker; Abigail R Smith; Mark S Daskin; Hannah Schapiro; Sabrina M Cottrell; Evelyn S Gendron; Peg Hill-Callahan; Alan B Leichtman; Robert M Merion; Stephen J Gill; Kayse Lee Maass Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Alwin Tubben; Camilo G Sotomayor; Adrian Post; Isidor Minovic; Timoer Frelink; Martin H de Borst; M Yusof Said; Rianne M Douwes; Else van den Berg; Ramón Rodrigo; Stefan P Berger; Gerjan J Navis; Stephan J L Bakker Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Elizabeth C Lorenz; Tanya M Petterson; Isabella Zaniletti; Kandace A Lackore; Bradley K Johnson; Martin L Mai; Sumi S Nair; Andrew J Bentall; Kathleen J Yost; David T Eton Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2022-09-03 Impact factor: 2.585
Authors: Hiba El Masri; Treasure M McGuire; Mieke L van Driel; Helen Benham; Samantha A Hollingworth Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 2.314
Authors: M Yusof Said; Adrian Post; Isidor Minović; Marco van Londen; Harry van Goor; Douwe Postmus; M Rebecca Heiner-Fokkema; Else van den Berg; Andreas Pasch; Gerjan Navis; Stephan J L Bakker Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 3.782