Skip to main content

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Cited by 25
  • Cited by
    Crossref Citations
    Crossref logo
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.
    Lipford, Kristie J. McPherson, Laura Hamoda, Reem Browne, Teri Gander, Jennifer C. Pastan, Stephen O. and Patzer, Rachel E. 2018. Dialysis facility staff perceptions of racial, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation. BMC Nephrology, Vol. 19, Issue. 1,
    Li, Bernadette Cairns, John A. Draper, Heather Dudley, Christopher Forsythe, John L. Johnson, Rachel J. Metcalfe, Wendy Oniscu, Gabriel C. Ravanan, Rommel Robb, Matthew L. Roderick, Paul Tomson, Charles R. Watson, Christopher J.E. and Bradley, J. Andrew 2017. Estimating Health-State Utility Values in Kidney Transplant Recipients and Waiting-List Patients Using the EQ-5D-5L. Value in Health, Vol. 20, Issue. 7, p. 976.
    van Hoorn, Ralph Tummers, Marcia Booth, Andrew Gerhardus, Ansgar Rehfuess, Eva Hind, Daniel Bossuyt, Patrick M. Welch, Vivian Debray, Thomas P. A. Underwood, Martin Cuijpers, Pim Kraemer, Helena van der Wilt, Gert Jan and Kievit, Wietkse 2017. The development of CHAMP: a checklist for the appraisal of moderators and predictors. BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 17, Issue. 1,
    Laplante, S. Liu, F. X. Culleton, B. Bernardo, A. King, Denise and Hudson, P. 2016. The Cost Effectiveness of High-Dose versus Conventional Haemodialysis: a Systematic Review. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 185.
    Chen, Julie Y Wan, Eric YF Choi, Edmond PH Wong, Carlos KH Chan, Anca KC Chan, Karina HY Li, Philip KT and Lam, Cindy LK 2016. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of Chinese patients undergoing haemodialysis in hospital or in the community: A 1-year longitudinal study. Nephrology, Vol. 21, Issue. 7, p. 617.
    Ferguson, Thomas W Tangri, Navdeep Rigatto, Claudio and Komenda, Paul 2015. Cost-effective treatment modalities for reducing morbidity associated with chronic kidney disease. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 243.
    Ferguson, Thomas W. Zacharias, James Walker, Simon R. Collister, David Rigatto, Claudio Tangri, Navdeep Komenda, Paul and Wong, Germaine 2015. An Economic Assessment Model of Rural and Remote Satellite Hemodialysis Units. PLOS ONE, Vol. 10, Issue. 8, p. e0135587.
    Tulchinsky, Theodore H. and Varavikova, Elena A. 2014. The New Public Health. p. 575.
    Barbara Piccoli, Giorgina Ferraresi, Martina Neve Vigotti, Federica and Di Giorgio, Gerardo 2014. Is there a Role for Home Dialysis and what is Home Dialysis Today?. Giornale di Tecniche Nefrologiche e Dialitiche, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 102.
    Cavallo, M.C. Sepe, V. Conte, F. Abelli, M. Ticozzelli, E. Bottazzi, A. and Geraci, P.M. 2014. Cost-Effectiveness of Kidney Transplantation From DCD in Italy. Transplantation Proceedings, Vol. 46, Issue. 10, p. 3289.
    Walker, Rachael Marshall, Mark R Morton, Rachael L McFarlane, Philip and Howard, Kirsten 2014. The cost-effectiveness of contemporary home haemodialysis modalities compared with facility haemodialysis: A systematic review of full economic evaluations. Nephrology, Vol. 19, Issue. 8, p. 459.
    Treharne, Catrin Liu, Frank Xiaoqing Arici, Murat Crowe, Lydia and Farooqui, Usman 2014. Peritoneal Dialysis and In-Centre Haemodialysis: A Cost-Utility Analysis from a UK Payer Perspective. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Vol. 12, Issue. 4, p. 409.
    Mazairac, Albert H.A. Blankestijn, Peter J. Grooteman, Muriel P.C. Lars Penne, E. van der Weerd, Neelke C. den Hoedt, Claire H. Buskens, Erik van den Dorpel, Marinus A. ter Wee, Piet M. Nubé, Menso J. Bots, Michiel L. and de Wit, G. Ardine 2013. The cost–utility of haemodiafiltration versus haemodialysis in the Convective Transport Study. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, Vol. 28, Issue. 7, p. 1865.
    Gómez, V. Galeano, C. Diez, V. Bueno, C. Díaz, F. and Burgos, F.J. 2012. Economic Impact of the Introduction of Machine Perfusion Preservation in a Kidney Transplantation Program in the Expanded Donor Era: Cost-Effectiveness Assessment. Transplantation Proceedings, Vol. 44, Issue. 9, p. 2521.
    Van de Wetering, Gijs Woertman, Willem H. and Adang, Eddy M. M. 2012. A model to correct for short-run inefficiencies in economic evaluations in healthcare. Health Economics, Vol. 21, Issue. 3, p. 270.
    Lavernia, Carlos J. and Alcerro, Jose C. 2011. Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness 1 Year After Total Hip Arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, Vol. 26, Issue. 5, p. 705.
    Cases, Alejandra Dempster, Martin Davies, Mark and Gamble, Gary 2011. The experience of individuals with renal failure participating in home haemodialysis: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 16, Issue. 6, p. 884.
    Menzin, Joseph Lines, Lisa M. Weiner, Daniel E. Neumann, Peter J. Nichols, Christine Rodriguez, Lauren Agodoa, Irene and Mayne, Tracy 2011. A Review of the Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Interventions in Chronic Kidney Disease. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 29, Issue. 10, p. 839.
    Haller, M. Gutjahr, G. Kramar, R. Harnoncourt, F. and Oberbauer, R. 2011. Cost-effectiveness analysis of renal replacement therapy in Austria. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, Vol. 26, Issue. 9, p. 2988.
    Garfield, S.S. Poret, A.W. and Evans, R.W. 2009. The Cost-Effectiveness of Organ Preservation Methods in Renal Transplantation: US Projections Based on the Machine Preservation Trial. Transplantation Proceedings, Vol. 41, Issue. 9, p. 3531.
    Download full list
    ×
  • Get access
    Add to cart USD35.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register Recommend to librarian

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

  • Juan G. Gonzalez-Perez (a1), Luke Vale (a1), Sally C. Stearns (a2) and Sarah Wordsworth (a3)
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.

Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press
References
Hide All
Briggs A, Sculpher M. 1998 An introduction to Markov Modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmaeconomics. 13: 397– 409.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mackenzie P, Mactier RA. 1998 Home haemodialysis in the 1990s. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 13: 1944– 1948.
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.
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.
Oxman AD. 1994 Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 309: 648– 651.
Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. 1993 The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 703: 125– 133.
UK Renal Registry. 2000. Annual report. Bristol: The UK Renal Registry;
UK Renal Registry. 2003. Annual report. Bristol: The UK Renal Registry;
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 18
Total number of PDF views: 58 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 325 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 12th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Cancel
Confirm
×