Literature DB >> 24211750

Comparison of cost-utility between automated peritoneal dialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.

Laura Cortés-Sanabria1, Carlos A Paredes-Ceseña, Rebeca M Herrera-Llamas, Yolanda Cruz-Bueno, Herman Soto-Molina, Leonardo Pazarín, Margarita Cortés, Héctor R Martínez-Ramírez.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) is increasing compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Surprisingly, little data about health benefits and cost of APD exist, and virtually no information comparing the cost-utility between CAPD and APD is available. We undertook this study to evaluate and compare the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and cost-utility indexes in patients on CAPD vs. APD
METHODS: This was a prospective cohort of patients initiating dialysis (2008-2009). Two questionnaires were self-administered: European Research Questionnaire Quality of Life (EQ-5D) and Kidney Disease Quality of Life (short form, KDQOL-SF, Rand, Santa Monica, CA). Direct medical costs (DMC) were determined from the health provider perspective including the following medical resource utilization: outpatient clinic/emergency care, dialysis procedures, medications, laboratory tests, hospitalization, and surgery. Cost-utility indexes were calculated dividing total mean cost by indicators of the HRQOL.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were evaluated: 77 on CAPD and 46 on APD. Results of the EQ-5D and KDQOL-SF questionnaires were significantly better in APD compared to the CAPD group. Main costs in both APD and CAPD were attributed to hospitalization and dialysis procedures followed by medication and surgery. Outpatient clinic visits and laboratory tests were significantly more costly in CAPD than in APD, whereas dialysis procedures were more expensive in the latter. Cost-utility indexes were significantly better in APD compared to CAPD.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant cost-utility advantage of APD vs. CAPD was observed. The annual DMC per-patient were not different between groups but the HRQOL was better in the APD compared to the CAPD group.
Copyright © 2013 IMSS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automated peritoneal dialysis; Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; Cost-utility index; Direct medical costs; Quality of life; Utilities

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24211750     DOI: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2013.10.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Med Res        ISSN: 0188-4409            Impact factor:   2.235


  6 in total

1.  Association between serum leptin levels and peritoneal dialysis: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shan Jiang; Kai Song; Sheng Feng; Yong-Bin Shi
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 2.447

2.  Medical Expenditure for Chronic Diseases in Mexico: The Case of Selected Diagnoses Treated by the Largest Care Providers.

Authors:  Alejandro Figueroa-Lara; Miguel Angel Gonzalez-Block; Jose Alarcon-Irigoyen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Economic costs of automated and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Taiwan: a combined survey and retrospective cohort analysis.

Authors:  Chao-Hsiun Tang; Yu-Ting Wu; Siao-Yuan Huang; Hsi-Hsien Chen; Ming-Ju Wu; Bang-Gee Hsu; Jer-Chia Tsai; Tso-Hsiao Chen; Yuh-Mou Sue
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Interaperitoneal Administration of Αlpha-Tocopherol Loaded Nanoparticles Improves Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Rat Ovaries Torsion and Detorsion Model.

Authors:  Alireza Najafpour; Houman Azizizadeh
Journal:  Bull Emerg Trauma       Date:  2018-07

5.  Influence of Systemic Administration of Coq10 Nanoparticles on Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury on Ovaries in Rat.

Authors:  Pouria Honardoust; Alireza Najafpour; Rahim Mohammadi
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 2.629

6.  Impact of dialysis modality conversion on the health-related quality of life of peritoneal dialysis patients: a retrospective cohort study in China.

Authors:  Heqi Sun; Ye Zhuang; Lanying Gao; Ningze Xu; Yan Xiong; Min Yuan; Jun Lu; Jianming Ye
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 2.984

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.