A call for transplant stewardship: The need for expanded evidence‐based evaluation of induction and biologic‐based cost‐saving strategies in kidney transplantation and beyond. Issue 9 (8th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jorgenson, Margaret R.; Descourouez, Jillian L.; Brady, Bethany L.; Chandran, Mary M.; Do, Vincent; Kim, Miae; Laub, Melissa R.; Lichvar, Alicia; Park, Jeong M.; Szczepanik, Amanda; Alloway, Rita R.
• Is Part Of: Clinical transplantation. Volume 35:Issue 9(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-06-08
• Subjects: economics -- immunosuppressive regimens -- risk assessment/risk stratification -- economics -- immunosuppressive regimens -- risk assessment/risk stratification; economics -- immunosuppressive regimens -- risk assessment/risk stratification -- economics -- immunosuppressive regimens -- risk assessment/risk stratification; Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc -- Periodicals; 617.95
• DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14372
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0902-0063

Abstract

Abstract: Rising expenditures threaten healthcare sustainability. While transplant programs are typically considered profitable, transplant medications are expensive and frequently targeted for cost savings. This review aims to summarize available literature supporting cost‐containment strategies used in solid organ transplant. Despite widespread use of these tactics, we found the available evidence to be fairly low quality. Strategies mainly focus on induction, particularly rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG), given its significant cost and the lack of consensus surrounding dosing. While there is higher‐quality evidence for high single‐dose rATG, and dose‐rounding protocols to reduce waste are likely low risk, more aggressive strategies, such as dosing rATG by CD3+ target‐attainment or on ideal‐body‐weight, have less robust support and did not always attain similar efficacy outcomes. Extrapolation of induction dosing strategies to rejection treatment is not supported by any currently available literature. Cost‐saving strategies for supportive therapies, such as IVIG and rituximab also have minimal literature support. Deferral of high‐cost agents to the outpatient arena is associated with minimal risk and increases reimbursement, although may increase complexity and cost‐burden for patients and infusion centers. The available evidence highlights the need for evaluation of unique patient‐specific clinical scenarios and optimization of therapies, rather than simple blanket application of cost‐saving initiatives in the transplant population.