Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nqxm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T10:34:20.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2005

Juan G. Gonzalez-Perez ,
Luke Vale ,
Sally C. Stearns  and
Sarah Wordsworth
Juan G. Gonzalez-Perez
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Luke Vale
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Sally C. Stearns
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Sarah Wordsworth
Affiliation:
Univesity of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: During 2001, over 32,000 patients in the United Kingdom received renal replacement therapy (RRT). Approximately half had a functioning transplant, with the remainder receiving dialysis therapy. The main form of dialysis is hemodialysis (HD), which is provided to 37.1 percent of the RRT population. HD is provided in three main settings: hospital (24.5 percent), satellite (10.9 percent), or home (1.7 percent). The objective of this study is to explore the cost-effectiveness of these different modalities.

Methods: By using clinical and cost data from a systematic review, a Markov model was developed to assess the costs and benefits of the three different modalities. The model included direct health service costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

Results: Satellite HD has lower costs £46,000 and £62,050 at 5 and 10 years than home HD £47,660 and £63,540. The total effectiveness of home HD was slightly greater than for satellite HD, so the incremental cost per QALY of home versus satellite HD was modest at £6,665 at 5 years and £3,943 at 10 years. Both modalities dominated hospital HD.

Conclusions: Results from the study reveal that satellite HD was less costly than home HD, and home HD was less costly than hospital HD. The lack of robust data on the effectiveness and new dialysis equipment, which were not included in this review, throws some caution on these results. Nonetheless, the results are supportive of a shift from hospital HD to satellite and home HD.

Keywords

Cost-benefit analysisQuality-adjusted life yearsHemodialysis homeRenal dialysisHealth service costs
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 32 - 39
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Briggs A, Sculpher M. 1998 An introduction to Markov Modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmaeconomics. 13: 397– 409.Google Scholar
Churchill DN. 1988: The effect of treatment modality on the quality of life for patients with end-stage renal disease. In: Khana R, ed. Advances in CAPD. Toronto: Peritoneal Dialysis Bulletin Inc; 63– 65.
De Wit GA. 1998 Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment. Health Policy. 44: 209– 227.Google Scholar
Dialysis and Cost-Effectiveness Study. 2002. Final report to European commission. Biomedical Research Fund (BIOMED 2),
Dolan P. 1997: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1095– 1108.Google Scholar
Downs SH, Black N. 1998 The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 52: 377– 384.Google Scholar
Drey N, Armitage A, Greenwood R, et al. 2003. Improving access to dialysis care: A national survey of renal satellite units in England and Wales. Annual Report. Bristol: The UK Renal Registry;
Hellerstedt WL, Johnson WJ, Ascher N, et al. 1984 Survival rates of 2,728 patients with end-stage renal disease. Mayo Clin Proc. 59: 776– 773.Google Scholar
Kirby L, Vale L. 2001 Dialysis for end stage renal disease. Determining a cost-effective approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 17: 181– 189.Google Scholar
Mackenzie P, Mactier RA. 1998 Home haemodialysis in the 1990s. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 13: 1944– 1948.Google Scholar
MacLeod A, Grant A, Donaldson C, et al. 1998 Effectiveness and efficiency of methods of dialysis therapy for end stage renal disease: Systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2: 1– 166.Google Scholar
Mowatt G, Vale L, Perez J, et al. 2003 Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and economic evaluation of home dialysis versus hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure. Health Technol Assess. 7: 1– 174.Google Scholar
Oxman AD. 1994 Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 309: 648– 651.Google Scholar
Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. 1993 The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 703: 125– 133.Google Scholar
UK Renal Registry. 2000. Annual report. Bristol: The UK Renal Registry;
UK Renal Registry. 2003. Annual report. Bristol: The UK Renal Registry;