Martin Howell1, Rachael C Walker2, Kirsten Howard3. 1. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Eastern Institute of Technology, Napier, New Zealand. 3. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. kirsten.howard@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The economic burden of providing maintenance dialysis to those with end-stage kidney disease continues to increase. Home dialysis, including both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, is commonly assumed to be more cost effective than facility dialysis, with some countries adopting a home-first policy in an attempt to reduce costs. However, the cost effectiveness of this approach is uncertain. The aim of this study is to review all published cost-effectiveness analyses comparing all alternative dialysis modalities for people with end-stage kidney disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment Database from the Centre of Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library and Econlit from January 2000 to December 2017. Published economic evaluations were included if they provided comparative information on the costs and health outcomes of alternative dialysis modalities. RESULTS: The review identified 16 economic evaluations comparing dialysis modalities from both high- and low-income countries. The majority (69%) were undertaken solely from the perspective of the payer or service provider, 14 (88%) included a cost-utility analysis and eight (50%) were modelled evaluations. The studies addressed costs and health outcomes of multiple dialysis modalities, with many reporting average cost effectiveness rather than incremental cost effectiveness. Almost all evaluations suggest home dialysis to be less costly and to offer comparable or better health outcomes than in-centre haemodialysis. However, the quality-of-life benefit for each modality was poorly defined and inconsistent in terms of magnitude and direction of differences between modalities and across studies. Other issues include exclusion of competing modalities and use of arbitrary assumptions with regard to the mix of modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to identify the mix of dialysis modalities that provides best outcomes for patients and health budgets is uncertain particularly given the lack of societal perspectives and inconsistencies between published studies.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The economic burden of providing maintenance dialysis to those with end-stage kidney disease continues to increase. Home dialysis, including both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, is commonly assumed to be more cost effective than facility dialysis, with some countries adopting a home-first policy in an attempt to reduce costs. However, the cost effectiveness of this approach is uncertain. The aim of this study is to review all published cost-effectiveness analyses comparing all alternative dialysis modalities for people with end-stage kidney disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment Database from the Centre of Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library and Econlit from January 2000 to December 2017. Published economic evaluations were included if they provided comparative information on the costs and health outcomes of alternative dialysis modalities. RESULTS: The review identified 16 economic evaluations comparing dialysis modalities from both high- and low-income countries. The majority (69%) were undertaken solely from the perspective of the payer or service provider, 14 (88%) included a cost-utility analysis and eight (50%) were modelled evaluations. The studies addressed costs and health outcomes of multiple dialysis modalities, with many reporting average cost effectiveness rather than incremental cost effectiveness. Almost all evaluations suggest home dialysis to be less costly and to offer comparable or better health outcomes than in-centre haemodialysis. However, the quality-of-life benefit for each modality was poorly defined and inconsistent in terms of magnitude and direction of differences between modalities and across studies. Other issues include exclusion of competing modalities and use of arbitrary assumptions with regard to the mix of modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to identify the mix of dialysis modalities that provides best outcomes for patients and health budgets is uncertain particularly given the lack of societal perspectives and inconsistencies between published studies.
Authors: Angela T Chen; Corin I Bronsther; Elizabeth E Stanley; A David Paltiel; James K Sullivan; Jamie E Collins; Tuhina Neogi; Jeffrey N Katz; Elena Losina Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Valentina Masola; Mario Bonomini; Silvio Borrelli; Lorenzo Di Liberato; Luigi Vecchi; Maurizio Onisto; Giovanni Gambaro; Roberto Palumbo; Arduino Arduini Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Matthew B Rivara; Todd Edwards; Donald Patrick; Lisa Anderson; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Rajnish Mehrotra Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Carmela Rago; Teresa Lombardi; Giorgia Di Fulvio; Lorenzo Di Liberato; Arduino Arduini; José C Divino-Filho; Mario Bonomini Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 4.546
Authors: Miquel Sitjar-Suñer; Rosa Suñer-Soler; Afra Masià-Plana; Emilia Chirveches-Pérez; Carme Bertran-Noguer; Concepció Fuentes-Pumarola Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mario Bonomini; Francesc E Borras; Maribel Troya-Saborido; Laura Carreras-Planella; Lorenzo Di Liberato; Arduino Arduini Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Nicole Jane Scholes-Robertson; Martin Howell; Talia Gutman; Amanda Baumgart; Victoria SInka; David J Tunnicliffe; Stephen May; Rachel Chalmers; Jonathan Craig; Allison Tong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 2.692