Addition of adult‐to‐adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost
Using outcomes data from the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, we performed a cost‐effectiveness analysis exploring the costs and benefits of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A multistage Markov decision analysis model was developed with treatment, including m...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Liver transplantation 2009-02, Vol.15 (2), p.148-162 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 162 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 148 |
container_title | Liver transplantation |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Northup, Patrick G. Abecassis, Michael M. Englesbe, Michael J. Emond, Jean C. Lee, Vanessa D. Stukenborg, George J. Tong, Lan Berg, Carl L. |
description | Using outcomes data from the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, we performed a cost‐effectiveness analysis exploring the costs and benefits of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A multistage Markov decision analysis model was developed with treatment, including medical management only (strategy 1), waiting list with possible deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT; strategy 2), and waiting list with possible LDLT or DDLT (strategy 3) over 10 years. Decompensated cirrhosis with medical management offered survival of 2.0 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) while costing an average of $65,068, waiting list with possible DDLT offered 4.4‐QALY survival and a mean cost of $151,613, and waiting list with possible DDLT or LDLT offered 4.9‐QALY survival and a mean cost of $208,149. Strategy 2 had an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $35,976 over strategy 1, whereas strategy 3 produced an ICER of $106,788 over strategy 2. On average, strategy 3 cost $47,693 more per QALY than strategy 1. Both DDLT and LDLT were cost‐effective compared to medical management of cirrhosis over our 10‐year study period. The addition of LDLT to a standard waiting list DDLT program is effective at improving recipient survival and preventing waiting list deaths but at a greater cost. Liver Transpl 15:148–162, 2009. © 2009 AASLD. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/lt.21671 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66882290</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>66882290</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3531-9c7e575c755faae319598654808c8e96f7226d2379387bcdb6f72ef75592d0263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMoXqrgE0hW4mZqkmmSyVKKNyi4qeshTTIlkpnUJDPSnY_gM_okphd0JRzO-c_h4-fwA3CJ0RgjRG5dGhPMOD4Ap5gSXrAJLw9_NaMn4CzGN4QwpgIdgxMsMOeTkp6C4U5rm6zvoG-g1L1L359fyee2XaCzg-2WUPtObqnkNycTYAqyiysnuwRXwS-DbCO0bZaDiTD2YbCDdHDRJyhzddB2KhgZjYbKx3QOjhrpornYzxF4fbifT5-K2cvj8_RuVqiSlrgQihvKqeKUNlKaEgsqKkYnFapUZQRrOCFMk5KLsuILpRebi2kyLohGhJUjcL3zzY-99yamurVRGZf_Nr6PNWNVRYhAGbzZgSr4GINp6lWwrQzrGqN6k3HtUr3NOKNXe89-0Rr9B-5DzUCxAz6sM-t_jerZfGf4A_kHiE0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>66882290</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Addition of adult‐to‐adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Northup, Patrick G. ; Abecassis, Michael M. ; Englesbe, Michael J. ; Emond, Jean C. ; Lee, Vanessa D. ; Stukenborg, George J. ; Tong, Lan ; Berg, Carl L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Northup, Patrick G. ; Abecassis, Michael M. ; Englesbe, Michael J. ; Emond, Jean C. ; Lee, Vanessa D. ; Stukenborg, George J. ; Tong, Lan ; Berg, Carl L. ; Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study Group</creatorcontrib><description>Using outcomes data from the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, we performed a cost‐effectiveness analysis exploring the costs and benefits of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A multistage Markov decision analysis model was developed with treatment, including medical management only (strategy 1), waiting list with possible deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT; strategy 2), and waiting list with possible LDLT or DDLT (strategy 3) over 10 years. Decompensated cirrhosis with medical management offered survival of 2.0 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) while costing an average of $65,068, waiting list with possible DDLT offered 4.4‐QALY survival and a mean cost of $151,613, and waiting list with possible DDLT or LDLT offered 4.9‐QALY survival and a mean cost of $208,149. Strategy 2 had an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $35,976 over strategy 1, whereas strategy 3 produced an ICER of $106,788 over strategy 2. On average, strategy 3 cost $47,693 more per QALY than strategy 1. Both DDLT and LDLT were cost‐effective compared to medical management of cirrhosis over our 10‐year study period. The addition of LDLT to a standard waiting list DDLT program is effective at improving recipient survival and preventing waiting list deaths but at a greater cost. Liver Transpl 15:148–162, 2009. © 2009 AASLD.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1527-6465</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-6473</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lt.21671</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19177435</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Adult ; Cohort Studies ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Decision Trees ; Female ; Humans ; Liver Transplantation - economics ; Living Donors ; Male ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Survival Analysis ; Waiting Lists</subject><ispartof>Liver transplantation, 2009-02, Vol.15 (2), p.148-162</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2009 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases</rights><rights>(c) 2009 AASLD.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3531-9c7e575c755faae319598654808c8e96f7226d2379387bcdb6f72ef75592d0263</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3531-9c7e575c755faae319598654808c8e96f7226d2379387bcdb6f72ef75592d0263</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Flt.21671$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Flt.21671$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19177435$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Northup, Patrick G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abecassis, Michael M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Englesbe, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emond, Jean C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Vanessa D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stukenborg, George J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Lan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berg, Carl L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study Group</creatorcontrib><title>Addition of adult‐to‐adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost</title><title>Liver transplantation</title><addtitle>Liver Transpl</addtitle><description>Using outcomes data from the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, we performed a cost‐effectiveness analysis exploring the costs and benefits of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A multistage Markov decision analysis model was developed with treatment, including medical management only (strategy 1), waiting list with possible deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT; strategy 2), and waiting list with possible LDLT or DDLT (strategy 3) over 10 years. Decompensated cirrhosis with medical management offered survival of 2.0 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) while costing an average of $65,068, waiting list with possible DDLT offered 4.4‐QALY survival and a mean cost of $151,613, and waiting list with possible DDLT or LDLT offered 4.9‐QALY survival and a mean cost of $208,149. Strategy 2 had an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $35,976 over strategy 1, whereas strategy 3 produced an ICER of $106,788 over strategy 2. On average, strategy 3 cost $47,693 more per QALY than strategy 1. Both DDLT and LDLT were cost‐effective compared to medical management of cirrhosis over our 10‐year study period. The addition of LDLT to a standard waiting list DDLT program is effective at improving recipient survival and preventing waiting list deaths but at a greater cost. Liver Transpl 15:148–162, 2009. © 2009 AASLD.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Decision Trees</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Liver Transplantation - economics</subject><subject>Living Donors</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Waiting Lists</subject><issn>1527-6465</issn><issn>1527-6473</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMoXqrgE0hW4mZqkmmSyVKKNyi4qeshTTIlkpnUJDPSnY_gM_okphd0JRzO-c_h4-fwA3CJ0RgjRG5dGhPMOD4Ap5gSXrAJLw9_NaMn4CzGN4QwpgIdgxMsMOeTkp6C4U5rm6zvoG-g1L1L359fyee2XaCzg-2WUPtObqnkNycTYAqyiysnuwRXwS-DbCO0bZaDiTD2YbCDdHDRJyhzddB2KhgZjYbKx3QOjhrpornYzxF4fbifT5-K2cvj8_RuVqiSlrgQihvKqeKUNlKaEgsqKkYnFapUZQRrOCFMk5KLsuILpRebi2kyLohGhJUjcL3zzY-99yamurVRGZf_Nr6PNWNVRYhAGbzZgSr4GINp6lWwrQzrGqN6k3HtUr3NOKNXe89-0Rr9B-5DzUCxAz6sM-t_jerZfGf4A_kHiE0</recordid><startdate>200902</startdate><enddate>200902</enddate><creator>Northup, Patrick G.</creator><creator>Abecassis, Michael M.</creator><creator>Englesbe, Michael J.</creator><creator>Emond, Jean C.</creator><creator>Lee, Vanessa D.</creator><creator>Stukenborg, George J.</creator><creator>Tong, Lan</creator><creator>Berg, Carl L.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200902</creationdate><title>Addition of adult‐to‐adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost</title><author>Northup, Patrick G. ; Abecassis, Michael M. ; Englesbe, Michael J. ; Emond, Jean C. ; Lee, Vanessa D. ; Stukenborg, George J. ; Tong, Lan ; Berg, Carl L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3531-9c7e575c755faae319598654808c8e96f7226d2379387bcdb6f72ef75592d0263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Decision Trees</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Liver Transplantation - economics</topic><topic>Living Donors</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Waiting Lists</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Northup, Patrick G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abecassis, Michael M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Englesbe, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emond, Jean C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Vanessa D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stukenborg, George J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Lan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berg, Carl L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Liver transplantation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Northup, Patrick G.</au><au>Abecassis, Michael M.</au><au>Englesbe, Michael J.</au><au>Emond, Jean C.</au><au>Lee, Vanessa D.</au><au>Stukenborg, George J.</au><au>Tong, Lan</au><au>Berg, Carl L.</au><aucorp>Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Addition of adult‐to‐adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost</atitle><jtitle>Liver transplantation</jtitle><addtitle>Liver Transpl</addtitle><date>2009-02</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>148</spage><epage>162</epage><pages>148-162</pages><issn>1527-6465</issn><eissn>1527-6473</eissn><abstract>Using outcomes data from the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, we performed a cost‐effectiveness analysis exploring the costs and benefits of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A multistage Markov decision analysis model was developed with treatment, including medical management only (strategy 1), waiting list with possible deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT; strategy 2), and waiting list with possible LDLT or DDLT (strategy 3) over 10 years. Decompensated cirrhosis with medical management offered survival of 2.0 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) while costing an average of $65,068, waiting list with possible DDLT offered 4.4‐QALY survival and a mean cost of $151,613, and waiting list with possible DDLT or LDLT offered 4.9‐QALY survival and a mean cost of $208,149. Strategy 2 had an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $35,976 over strategy 1, whereas strategy 3 produced an ICER of $106,788 over strategy 2. On average, strategy 3 cost $47,693 more per QALY than strategy 1. Both DDLT and LDLT were cost‐effective compared to medical management of cirrhosis over our 10‐year study period. The addition of LDLT to a standard waiting list DDLT program is effective at improving recipient survival and preventing waiting list deaths but at a greater cost. Liver Transpl 15:148–162, 2009. © 2009 AASLD.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>19177435</pmid><doi>10.1002/lt.21671</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1527-6465 |
ispartof | Liver transplantation, 2009-02, Vol.15 (2), p.148-162 |
issn | 1527-6465 1527-6473 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66882290 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adult Cohort Studies Cost-Benefit Analysis Decision Trees Female Humans Liver Transplantation - economics Living Donors Male Quality-Adjusted Life Years Survival Analysis Waiting Lists |
title | Addition of adult‐to‐adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T02%3A07%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Addition%20of%20adult%E2%80%90to%E2%80%90adult%20living%20donation%20to%20liver%20transplant%20programs%20improves%20survival%20but%20at%20an%20increased%20cost&rft.jtitle=Liver%20transplantation&rft.au=Northup,%20Patrick%20G.&rft.aucorp=Adult-to-Adult%20Living%20Donor%20Liver%20Transplantation%20Cohort%20Study%20Group&rft.date=2009-02&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=148&rft.epage=162&rft.pages=148-162&rft.issn=1527-6465&rft.eissn=1527-6473&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lt.21671&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E66882290%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=66882290&rft_id=info:pmid/19177435&rfr_iscdi=true |