Any evidence that patients who receive a lung transplant live longer than they would have with more conservative treatment?

I know that a study followed every single patient listed for a heart transplant in Germany in 1997 and found NO DIFFERENCE IN SURVIVAL RATES betwen those who actually received a heart transplant and those who did not.

I am unable to find any other studies on the matter. I know that the NHS website has a section, "Cost-effectiveness of transplantation." The entire article is about kidney transplants It doesn't say a word about lung transplants or any other kind of transplants at all. There's nothing at all on this matter on the US Health Resources and Services Administration website, the National Transplant Society website, or the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network website. The April issue of the American Journal of Transplantation has an article by McCurry et al. titled "Lung transplantation in the United States 1998-2007" which says nothing at all about whether patients who received a liung transplant lived any longer than they would have with more conservative treatment.

To Larry:

See my post, "Why do people say heart transplants "save lives"? I've linked to the study on heart transplants in Germany, as well as the April issue of the American Journal of Transplantation.

"...the claims I've heard that health care is more expensive in the United States because the research and innovation is done there, and other countries just mooch off that to provide American medical and drug innovations to their citizens on the cheap."

Actually, the great majority of new medicines the drug companies come up with are so-called "me too" drugs, developed for conditions for which there already are remedies. The FDA requires only evidence that the new drugs work better than a placebo. There's no requirement that they work better than existing remedies on the market. The new drugs are often heavily advertised and promoted, and often cost many times more than existing generic remedies which are as good or better.

See "The Truth About the Drug Companies" by Marica Angell, M.D.

Anyway, the drug companies play a very small role in the development of new drugs. Most of the basic science is done through taxpayer-supported research through the NIH. The drug companies usually enter the process very late in the game, after the hard work has already been done.

One of the main problems with the Canadian healthcare system is Canadian doctors leaving for greener -- make that greedier -- pastures in the US. That is changing, however, according to information found here:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85323.php

Approximately 13% of doctors in the United States who were trained in Canada would seriously consider returning to Canada and practice medicine back home, according to a report by the Canadian Medical Association. The report also indicated that half of the 1,539 total survey respondents would be interested in receiving more information from the Canadian Medical Association about practicing opportunities in Canada.

In April, 2007, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) wrote to 5,156 Canadian-trained doctors aged less than 55 who work in the USA. 32% (1,539) of them responded. The majority (60%) of the respondents had left Canada during the 1990s - this coincided with a period of funding cuts, which in turn undermined physician morale in Canada.

According to the CMA, during the period 1991-2004 Canada lost 4,014 doctors more to the United States than it gained.

Colin McMillan, who was CMA President when the survey took place, said "We are encouraged to see that in the last 2 years the southward flow of physicians has reversed, with Canada enjoying a net gain of 55 physicians (from the US) in 2004 and 61 in 2005. We are now trying to determine how we can focus our recruitment efforts on physicians who used to practice in Canada."

I am glad you posted this. I read a few comments on Slate about how countries with socialized medicine do not foster innovation in medicine. This is complete BS. See work done at the Montreal Neurological Institute (www.mni.mcgill.ca) for example.

Tom: I agree that many medical doctors and other scientists (myself included) move to the U.S. I also know many others who refused to move as well. Most were for ideological reasons. This news also means that our education system produces very good graduates:

http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/04/25/higher_education_in_a_socialist_country_a_better_option

;-)

Great post Don. Yeah this stuff about Canada piggy backing off of U.S. research is baloney. It's true, perhaps in cardiac research. But less so in neurology, simply because unlike here very few neuro surgeons in the U.S. will work for medicare. They end up only with the cases of people or HMOs who can afford to pay them. So in the U.S they lose out on some the kind of interesting cases that only come up in a system that will fund experimental treatment.

That's just a wow medical technology right there. Since i have COPD, I envision a time where my lungs will be sitting under a plastic bag next to me. I cant tell you how comforting that feels :P