Filtering for the best policy: An economic evaluation of policy options for kidney replacement coverage in the Philippines.

AIM: Kidney failure patients in the Philippines have free choice on their kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with a majority choosing haemodialysis (HD) over peritoneal dialysis (PD) and transplantation despite the inadequate coverage of HD. Although national health insurance coverage is limited, KRT remains to be one of the top benefits pay-outs in the country. The study aims to identify the most cost-effective policy strategy for financing KRT in the Philippines, in the context of a universal healthcare policy. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate and compare the costs and benefits of different policy options with the comparator being partial HD coverage. Direct medical, non-medical and indirect costs were measured, while outcomes were reported through quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Parameters were derived from the kidney disease registry, hospital statistics from a tertiary hospital and a patient survey. RESULTS: The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that shifting to a PD-First policy provides better value-for-money with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 570 029 Philippine Pesos (PHP) per QALY gained, compared with the ICER of the PD-First combined with pre-emptive transplant option of 577 989 PHP per QALY gained. Expanding existing HD coverage to 156 sessions was the least cost-effective policy (1 522 437 PHP per QALY gained). CONCLUSION: Government should consider shifting to a PD-First strategy and support policies that promote kidney transplants among existing PD and HD patients. This study also highlights the need for proper evaluation of partial coverage policies to ensure that government investments represent good value-for-money and patients receive optimal care.

Pilot Study Comparing the Efficacy, Safety, Convertibility, and Tacrolimus Trough Levels of Twice-Daily Tacrolimus (Prograf) to Once-Daily Tacrolimus (Advagraf) Among Standard-Risk Kidney Transplant Patients at the National Kidney and Transplant Institute.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a once-daily formulation of tacrolimus (Advagraf) was released in the Philippines. Studies have shown that these 2 formulations are bioequivalent at a 1:1 conversion. This study aims to determine the efficacy, safety, convertibility, and tacrolimus trough level of once-daily tacrolimus at the end of 6 months post transplant. METHODS: This is a randomized study among standard-risk primary kidney transplant patients performed at the National Kidney and Transplant Institute, Philippines. A total of 40 patients completed the 6-month follow-up. Patients in Group A who failed to meet the criteria for conversion to once-daily tacrolimus were considered to have reached the end of the study, while patients who satisfied the conversion criteria will be followed up for an additional 6 months. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The area under the curve, maximum concentration, time to achieve the maximum concentration, and the coefficient of variation were similar. The twice-daily tacrolimus (Prograf) group patients had significantly higher mean tacrolimus trough levels than the Group B once-daily tacrolimus patients. An increase of a once-daily tacrolimus mean dose of 8% was required to achieve a therapeutic drug level post conversion. The graft and patient survival were 100%. There was no biopsy-proven acute rejection noted either both group. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, conversion from twice-daily tacrolimus to once-daily tacrolimus in kidney transplant in both de novo and converted patients after KT is safe, ensuring greater stability of drug blood concentrations than the standard form. The results also suggest an 8% increase when converting stable KT patients from twice-daily tacrolimus to once-daily tacrolimus.

Incentives for organ donation: proposed standards for an internationally acceptable system.

Incentives for organ donation, currently prohibited in most countries, may increase donation and save lives. Discussion of incentives has focused on two areas: (1) whether or not there are ethical principles that justify the current prohibition and (2) whether incentives would do more good than harm. We herein address the second concern and propose for discussion standards and guidelines for an acceptable system of incentives for donation. We believe that if systems based on these guidelines were developed, harms would be no greater than those to today's conventional donors. Ultimately, until there are trials of incentives, the question of benefits and harms cannot be satisfactorily answered.