Tracey Ying1, Anh Tran2, Angela C Webster3, Scott W Klarenbach4, John Gill5, Steven Chadban6, Rachael Morton2. 1. Renal Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW. Electronic address: tracey.ying@sydney.edu.au. 2. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Australia. 3. School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada. 5. Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 6. Renal Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia; Kidney Node, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: On account of the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in patients with kidney failure, clinical practice guidelines recommend regular screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients on the kidney transplant waitlist. To date, the cost-effectiveness of such screening has not been evaluated. A Canadian-Australasian randomized controlled trial of screening kidney transplant candidates for CAD (CARSK) is currently is being conducted to answer this question. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to determine, before completion of the trial, the cost-effectiveness of no further screening versus regular screening for asymptomatic CAD and to evaluate potential influential variables that may affect results of the economic evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: A modeled cost-utility analysis. SETTING & POPULATION: A theoretical cohort of adult Australian and New Zealand kidney transplant candidates on the waitlist. INTERVENTION: No further screening for asymptomatic CAD versus regular protocolized screening (annual or second yearly) for CAD after kidney transplant waitlisting. OUTCOMES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, reported as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). MODEL, PERSPECTIVES, & TIMEFRAME: Markov microsimulation model, health system perspective and over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of no further screening was $11,122 per QALY gained when compared with regular screening. No further screening increased survival by 0.49 life-year or 0.35 QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the costs of transplantation in the first year and CAD prevalence as the most influential variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that 94% of the simulations were cost-effective below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: Rates of cardiovascular events in waitlisted candidates and transplant recipients are limited in the contemporary era. The results may not be generalizable to populations outside Australia and New Zealand. CONCLUSIONS: No further screening for CAD after waitlisting is likely to be cost-effective and may improve survival. Precision around CAD prevalence estimates and health care resource use will reduce existing uncertainty.
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: On account of the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in patients with kidney failure, clinical practice guidelines recommend regular screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients on the kidney transplant waitlist. To date, the cost-effectiveness of such screening has not been evaluated. A Canadian-Australasian randomized controlled trial of screening kidney transplant candidates for CAD (CARSK) is currently is being conducted to answer this question. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to determine, before completion of the trial, the cost-effectiveness of no further screening versus regular screening for asymptomatic CAD and to evaluate potential influential variables that may affect results of the economic evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: A modeled cost-utility analysis. SETTING & POPULATION: A theoretical cohort of adult Australian and New Zealand kidney transplant candidates on the waitlist. INTERVENTION: No further screening for asymptomatic CAD versus regular protocolized screening (annual or second yearly) for CAD after kidney transplant waitlisting. OUTCOMES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, reported as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). MODEL, PERSPECTIVES, & TIMEFRAME: Markov microsimulation model, health system perspective and over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of no further screening was $11,122 per QALY gained when compared with regular screening. No further screening increased survival by 0.49 life-year or 0.35 QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the costs of transplantation in the first year and CAD prevalence as the most influential variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that 94% of the simulations were cost-effective below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: Rates of cardiovascular events in waitlisted candidates and transplant recipients are limited in the contemporary era. The results may not be generalizable to populations outside Australia and New Zealand. CONCLUSIONS: No further screening for CAD after waitlisting is likely to be cost-effective and may improve survival. Precision around CAD prevalence estimates and health care resource use will reduce existing uncertainty.
Authors: Victor Khou; Nicole L De La Mata; Patrick J Kelly; Philip Masson; Emma O'Lone; Rachael L Morton; Angela C Webster Journal: Nephrology (Carlton) Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 2.358
Authors: Sameera Senanayake; Helen Healy; Steven M McPhail; Keshwar Baboolal; Sanjeewa Kularatna Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.686