Kidney transplantation is the optimal therapy for end-stage renal disease, prolonging survival and reducing spending. Prior economic analyses of kidney transplantation, using Markov models, have generally assumed compatible, low-risk donors. The economic implications of transplantation with high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) deceased donors, ABO incompatible living donors, and HLA incompatible living donors have not been assessed. The costs of transplantation and dialysis were compared with the use of discrete event simulation over a 10-year period, with data from the United States Renal Data System, University HealthSystem Consortium, and literature review. Graft failure rates and expenditures were adjusted for donor characteristics. All transplantation options were associated with improved survival compared with dialysis (transplantation: 5.20-6.34 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] vs dialysis: 4.03 QALYs). Living donor and low-KDPI deceased donor transplantations were cost-saving compared with dialysis, while transplantations using high-KDPI deceased donor, ABO-incompatible or HLA-incompatible living donors were cost-effective (<$100 000 per QALY). Predicted costs per QALY range from $39 939 for HLA-compatible living donor transplantation to $80 486 for HLA-incompatible donors compared with $72 476 for dialysis. In conclusion, kidney transplantation is cost-effective across all donor types despite higher costs for marginal organs and innovative living donor practices.
Higher availability of LCCs in African American communities and lower prices and greater outdoor advertising in minority and young adult neighborhoods may establish environmental triggers to smoke among groups susceptible to initiation, addiction, and long-term negative health consequences.
ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of JUUL use and identify demographic and psychosocial correlates of use among youth and young adults in the USA.MethodsA national, probability-based sample was recruited via address-based sampling, with subsamples recruited from an existing probability-based online panel. Participants (N=14 379) ages 15–34 were surveyed about JUUL use, tobacco use, electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) harm perceptions, sensation seeking and demographic characteristics. Data were collected February–May 2018. Χ2 analyses assessed differences in JUUL use by demographic and psychosocial characteristics. Logistic regressions identified significant correlates of ever and current JUUL use.ResultsOverall, 6.0% reported ever JUUL use, and 3.3% reported past 30-day (ie, current) use. Rates were higher among participants aged 15–17 and 18–21 years, with 9.5% and 11.2% reporting ever use, and 6.1% and 7.7% reporting current use, respectively. Among current users aged 15–17 years, 55.8% reported use on 3 or more days in the past month, and over a quarter reported use on 10–30 days. Significant correlates of use included younger age, white race, greater financial comfort, perceptions of ENDS as less harmful than cigarettes, household ENDS use, high sensation seeking and current combustible tobacco use.ConclusionJUUL use was significantly higher among young people, with those under 21 having significantly higher odds of ever and current use. Frequency of use patterns suggest youth may not be experimenting with the device but using it regularly. Given the high nicotine content of JUUL, there is concern over the potential for addiction and other serious health consequences among young people. Findings suggest strong regulatory actions are needed to prevent youth and young adult uptake.
Improving the development and delivery of health information intended for minority and vulnerable populations may help reduce existing disparities in health information-seeking and care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.