Economic evaluations and costing studies of lung transplantation: A scoping review

Background: Evaluation of the joint clinical and economic impacts of lung transplant and associated technologies is crucial for evidence-informed decision-making and wise allocation of scarce healthcare resources. We performed a scoping review to summarize and categorize the available evidence of the costs and cost-effectiveness of lung transplantation.

Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS EED, and EconLit was performed to identify studies involving lung transplantation for adults that measured costs, cost-effectiveness, or which described themselves as economic evaluations. A scoping review was performed in adherence to the framework described by Arksey & O'Malley. Risk of bias was assessed in included studies using the ECOBIAS and CHEC-list tools.

Results: In total, 324 studies were identified, of which 28 met inclusion criteria. Cost-utility estimates of lung transplant versus waitlist, from the healthcare payer perspective and a time-horizon of at least 10-years ranged between $42,459 and $154,051 per quality-adjusted life year. Common topics of study included lung transplant versus waitlist care, immunosuppression, organ retrieval and allocation, and mechanical life support.

Conclusions: Sources of variation in costs-assessments and economic evaluations included differences in the type of study performed, payer perspective adopted, study time horizon, and variation in clinical practice. The best available cost-utility estimates for lung transplant versus waitlist may represent cost-effectiveness under some circumstances, but high-quality evidence is lacking. Further cost-utility analyses, with sufficient methodologic rigour, are required to overcome the observed variation in results and confirm cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care in lung transplantation.