BACKGROUND: Home nocturnal hemodialysis is an intensive form of hemodialysis, where patients perform their treatments at home for about 7 hours approximately 6 nights a week. Compared with in-center conventional hemodialysis, home nocturnal hemodialysis has been shown to improve physiologic parameters and reduce health care costs; however, the effects on quality of life and cost utility are less clear. We hypothesized that individuals performing home nocturnal hemodialysis would have a higher quality of life and superior cost utility than in-center hemodialysis patients. METHODS: Home nocturnal hemodialysis patients and a demographically similar group of in-center hemodialysis patients from a hospital without a home hemodialysis program underwent computer-assisted interviews to assess their utility score for current health by the standard gamble method. RESULTS: Nineteen in-center hemodialysis and 24 home nocturnal hemodialysis patients were interviewed. Mean annual costs for home nocturnal hemodialysis were about 10,000 dollars lower for home nocturnal hemodialysis (55,139 dollars +/- 7651 dollars for home nocturnal hemodialysis vs. 66,367 dollars +/- 17,502 dollars for in-center hemodialysis, P = 0.03). Home nocturnal hemodialysis was associated with a higher utility score than in-center hemodialysis (0.77 +/- 0.23 vs. 0.53 +/- 0.35, P = 0.03). The cost utility for home nocturnal hemodialysis was 71,443 dollars/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), while for in-center hemodialysis it was 125,845 dollars/QALY. Home nocturnal hemodialysis was the dominant strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -45,932 dollars. The 95% CI for the ICER, and 2500 bootstrap iterations of the ICER all fell below the cost-effectiveness ceiling of 50,000 dollars. The net monetary benefit of home nocturnal hemodialysis ranged from 11,227 dollars to 35,669 dollars. CONCLUSION: Home nocturnal hemodialysis is associated with a higher quality of life and a superior cost utility when compared to in-center hemodialysis.
BACKGROUND: Home nocturnal hemodialysis is an intensive form of hemodialysis, where patients perform their treatments at home for about 7 hours approximately 6 nights a week. Compared with in-center conventional hemodialysis, home nocturnal hemodialysis has been shown to improve physiologic parameters and reduce health care costs; however, the effects on quality of life and cost utility are less clear. We hypothesized that individuals performing home nocturnal hemodialysis would have a higher quality of life and superior cost utility than in-center hemodialysis patients. METHODS: Home nocturnal hemodialysis patients and a demographically similar group of in-center hemodialysis patients from a hospital without a home hemodialysis program underwent computer-assisted interviews to assess their utility score for current health by the standard gamble method. RESULTS: Nineteen in-center hemodialysis and 24 home nocturnal hemodialysis patients were interviewed. Mean annual costs for home nocturnal hemodialysis were about 10,000 dollars lower for home nocturnal hemodialysis (55,139 dollars +/- 7651 dollars for home nocturnal hemodialysis vs. 66,367 dollars +/- 17,502 dollars for in-center hemodialysis, P = 0.03). Home nocturnal hemodialysis was associated with a higher utility score than in-center hemodialysis (0.77 +/- 0.23 vs. 0.53 +/- 0.35, P = 0.03). The cost utility for home nocturnal hemodialysis was 71,443 dollars/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), while for in-center hemodialysis it was 125,845 dollars/QALY. Home nocturnal hemodialysis was the dominant strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -45,932 dollars. The 95% CI for the ICER, and 2500 bootstrap iterations of the ICER all fell below the cost-effectiveness ceiling of 50,000 dollars. The net monetary benefit of home nocturnal hemodialysis ranged from 11,227 dollars to 35,669 dollars. CONCLUSION: Home nocturnal hemodialysis is associated with a higher quality of life and a superior cost utility when compared to in-center hemodialysis.
Authors: Robert P Pauly; Katerina Maximova; Jennifer Coppens; Reem A Asad; Andreas Pierratos; Paul Komenda; Michael Copland; Gihad E Nesrallah; Adeera Levin; Anne Chery; Christopher T Chan Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Davide P Cinà; Niki Dacouris; Mina Kashani; Beth Unana; Ramona Cook; Jason Fung; Julia Delacruz; Aaron P Zaltzman; Philip A McFarlane; Jeffrey Perl Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Joseph Menzin; Lisa M Lines; Daniel E Weiner; Peter J Neumann; Christine Nichols; Lauren Rodriguez; Irene Agodoa; Tracy Mayne Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Suma Prakash; Rick Coffin; Jesse Schold; Steven A Lewis; Douglas Gunzler; Susan Stark; Matthew Howard; Darlene Rodgers; Douglas Einstadter; Ashwini R Sehgal Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Scott Klarenbach; Marcello Tonelli; Robert Pauly; Michael Walsh; Bruce Culleton; Helen So; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Braden Manns Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Victor Gura; Alexandra S Macy; Masoud Beizai; Carlos Ezon; Thomas A Golper Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-08-20 Impact factor: 8.237