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.

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.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE Finerenone significantly improved cardiorenal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the Finerenone in Reducing Kidney Failure and Disease Progression in Diabetic Kidney Disease trial. We explored whether baseline HbA1c level and insulin treatment influenced outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with T2D, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of 30–5,000 mg/g, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25 to <75 mL/min/1.73 m2, and treated with optimized renin–angiotensin system blockade were randomly assigned to receive finerenone or placebo. Efficacy outcomes included kidney (kidney failure, sustained decrease ≥40% in eGFR from baseline, or renal death) and cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) composite endpoints. Patients were analyzed by baseline insulin use and by baseline HbA1c <7.5% (58 mmol/mol) or ≥7.5%. RESULTS Of 5,674 patients, 3,637 (64.1%) received insulin at baseline. Overall, 5,663 patients were included in the analysis for HbA1c; 2,794 (49.3%) had baseline HbA1c <7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Finerenone significantly reduced risk of the kidney composite outcome independent of baseline HbA1c level and insulin use (Pinteraction = 0.41 and 0.56, respectively). Cardiovascular composite outcome incidence was reduced with finerenone irrespective of baseline HbA1c level and insulin use (Pinteraction = 0.70 and 0.33, respectively). Although baseline HbA1c level did not affect kidney event risk, cardiovascular risk increased with higher HbA1c level. UACR reduction was consistent across subgroups. Adverse events were similar between groups regardless of baseline HbA1c level and insulin use; few finerenone-treated patients discontinued treatment because of hyperkalemia. CONCLUSIONS Finerenone reduces kidney and cardiovascular outcome risk in patients with CKD and T2D, and risks appear consistent irrespective of HbA1c levels or insulin use.

No abstract