External Validation of the United Kingdom Transplant Benefit Score in Australia and New Zealand.

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Eunice G Lee, Marcos V Perini, Enes Makalic, Gabriel C Oniscu, Michael A Fink
{"title":"External Validation of the United Kingdom Transplant Benefit Score in Australia and New Zealand.","authors":"Eunice G Lee,&nbsp;Marcos V Perini,&nbsp;Enes Makalic,&nbsp;Gabriel C Oniscu,&nbsp;Michael A Fink","doi":"10.1177/15269248221145047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> In Australia and New Zealand, liver allocation is needs based (based on model for end-stage liver disease score). An alternative allocation system is a transplant benefit-based model. Transplant benefit is quantified by complex waitlist and transplant survival prediction models. <b>Research Questions:</b> To validate the UK transplant benefit score in an Australia and New Zealand population. <b>Design:</b> This study analyzed data on listings and transplants for chronic liver disease between 2009 and 2018, using the Australia and New Zealand Liver and Intestinal Transplant Registry. Excluded were variant syndromes, hepatocellular cancer, urgent listings, pediatric, living donor, and multi-organ listings and transplants. UK transplant benefit waitlist and transplant benefit score were calculated for listings and transplants, respectively. Outcomes were time to waitlist death and time to transplant failure. Calibration and discrimination were assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and C-statistics. <b>Results:</b> There were differences in the UK and Australia and New Zealand listing, transplant, and donor populations including older recipient age, higher recipient and donor body mass index, and higher incidence of hepatitis C in the Australia and New Zealand population. Waitlist scores were calculated for 2241 patients and transplant scores were calculated for 1755 patients. The waitlist model C-statistic at 5 years was 0.70 and the transplant model C-statistic was 0.56, with poor calibration of both models. <b>Conclusion:</b> The UK transplant benefit score model performed poorly, suggesting that UK benefit-based allocation would not improve overall outcomes in Australia and New Zealand. Generalizability of survival prediction models was limited by differences in transplant populations and practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":20671,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Transplantation","volume":"33 1","pages":"25-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15269248221145047","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In Australia and New Zealand, liver allocation is needs based (based on model for end-stage liver disease score). An alternative allocation system is a transplant benefit-based model. Transplant benefit is quantified by complex waitlist and transplant survival prediction models. Research Questions: To validate the UK transplant benefit score in an Australia and New Zealand population. Design: This study analyzed data on listings and transplants for chronic liver disease between 2009 and 2018, using the Australia and New Zealand Liver and Intestinal Transplant Registry. Excluded were variant syndromes, hepatocellular cancer, urgent listings, pediatric, living donor, and multi-organ listings and transplants. UK transplant benefit waitlist and transplant benefit score were calculated for listings and transplants, respectively. Outcomes were time to waitlist death and time to transplant failure. Calibration and discrimination were assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and C-statistics. Results: There were differences in the UK and Australia and New Zealand listing, transplant, and donor populations including older recipient age, higher recipient and donor body mass index, and higher incidence of hepatitis C in the Australia and New Zealand population. Waitlist scores were calculated for 2241 patients and transplant scores were calculated for 1755 patients. The waitlist model C-statistic at 5 years was 0.70 and the transplant model C-statistic was 0.56, with poor calibration of both models. Conclusion: The UK transplant benefit score model performed poorly, suggesting that UK benefit-based allocation would not improve overall outcomes in Australia and New Zealand. Generalizability of survival prediction models was limited by differences in transplant populations and practices.

英国移植益处评分在澳大利亚和新西兰的外部验证。
简介:在澳大利亚和新西兰,肝脏分配是基于需求的(基于终末期肝病评分模型)。另一种分配制度是基于移植效益的模式。移植效益是通过复杂的等待名单和移植生存预测模型量化的。研究问题:在澳大利亚和新西兰人群中验证英国移植的益处评分。设计:本研究使用澳大利亚和新西兰肝脏和肠道移植登记处,分析了2009年至2018年慢性肝病的清单和移植数据。排除了变异综合征、肝细胞癌、紧急清单、儿科、活体供体和多器官清单和移植。英国移植福利等待名单和移植福利评分分别为列表和移植计算。结果是等待死亡的时间和移植失败的时间。采用Kaplan-Meier分析和c统计进行校正和鉴别。结果:在英国、澳大利亚和新西兰的上市、移植和供体人群中存在差异,包括受体年龄较大、受体和供体体重指数较高、澳大利亚和新西兰人群中丙型肝炎发病率较高。2241例患者计算了候补名单评分,1755例患者计算了移植评分。等待名单模型5年的c -统计量为0.70,移植模型的c -统计量为0.56,两个模型的校准都很差。结论:英国移植福利评分模型表现不佳,表明英国基于福利的分配不会改善澳大利亚和新西兰的总体结果。生存预测模型的通用性受到移植人群和实践差异的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Progress in Transplantation
Progress in Transplantation SURGERY-TRANSPLANTATION
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Progress in Transplantation (PIT) is the official journal of NATCO, The Organization for Transplant Professionals. Journal Partners include: Australasian Transplant Coordinators Association and Society for Transplant Social Workers. PIT reflects the multi-disciplinary team approach to procurement and clinical aspects of organ and tissue transplantation by providing a professional forum for exchange of the continually changing body of knowledge in transplantation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信