Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of frequent in-center hemodialysis.

ABSTRACT: Published evidence suggests that frequent hemodialysis (more than three times per week) for patients with ESRD may improve health-related quality of life and has the potential to increase longevity and reduce hospitalization and other complications. Here, a Monte Carlo simulation model was used to compare varying combinations of in-center hemodialysis frequency (three to six treatments per week) and session length (2 to 4.5 h per session) with regard to unadjusted and quality-adjusted life-years and total lifetime costs for a cohort of 200,000 patients, representing the prevalent ESRD population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for the various regimens relative to a conventional hemodialysis regimen (three treatments per week, 3.5 h per session). Using conservative assumptions of the potential effects of more frequent hemodialysis on outcomes, most strategies achieved a cost-effectiveness ratio of <$125,000, although all had a cost-effectiveness ratio of >$75,000. The cost-effectiveness ratio increased with the frequency of hemodialysis. More frequent in-center hemodialysis strategies could become cost-neutral if the cost per hemodialysis session could be reduced by 32 to 43%. No other change in model assumptions achieved cost neutrality. In conclusion, given the extraordinarily high costs of the ESRD program, the viability of more frequent hemodialysis strategies depends on significant improvements in the economic model underlying the delivery of hemodialysis.

SUBMITTER: Lee CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2518444 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of frequent in-center hemodialysis.

Lee Chris P CP Zenios Stefanos A SA Chertow Glenn M GM

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN 20080709 9

Published evidence suggests that frequent hemodialysis (more than three times per week) for patients with ESRD may improve health-related quality of life and has the potential to increase longevity and reduce hospitalization and other complications. Here, a Monte Carlo simulation model was used to compare varying combinations of in-center hemodialysis frequency (three to six treatments per week) and session length (2 to 4.5 h per session) with regard to unadjusted and quality-adjusted life-years ...[more]

PMID: 18614773

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although arteriovenous fistulas have been found to be the most cost-effective form of hemodialysis access, the relative benefits of placing an arteriovenous fistula versus an arteriovenous graft seem to be least certain for older adults and when placed preemptively. However, older adults' life expectancy is heterogeneous, and most patients do not undergo permanent access creation until after dialysis initiation. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of arteriovenous fistula placement after dialysis initiation in older adults as a function of age and life expectancy.Using a hypothetical cohort of patients on incident hemodialysis with central venous catheters, we constructed Markov models of three treatment options: (1) arteriovenous fistula placement, (2) arteriovenous graft placement, or (3) continued catheter use. Costs, utilities, and transitional probabilities were derived from existing literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by age group (65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, and 85-89 years old) and quartile of life expectancy. Costs, quality-adjusted life-months, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were evaluated for up to 5 years.The arteriovenous fistula option was cost effective compared with continued catheter use for all age and life expectancy groups, except for 85-89 year olds in the lowest life expectancy quartile. The arteriovenous fistula option was more cost effective than the arteriovenous graft option for all quartiles of life expectancy among the 65- to 69-year-old age group. For older age groups, differences in cost-effectiveness between the strategies were attenuated, and the arteriovenous fistula option tended to only be cost effective in patients with life expectancy >2 years. For groups for which the arteriovenous fistula option was not cost saving, the cost to gain one quality-adjusted life-month ranged from $2294 to $14,042.Among older adults, the cost-effectiveness of an arteriovenous fistula placed within the first month of dialysis diminishes with increasing age and lower life expectancy and is not the most cost-effective option for those with the most limited life expectancy.

Project description:BackgroundFew data are available regarding the long-term mortality rate for patients receiving nocturnal home hemodialysis.Study designPosttrial observational study.Setting & participantsFrequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial participants who consented to extended follow-up.InterventionThe FHN Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 individuals to 6-times-weekly home nocturnal hemodialysis or 3-times-weekly hemodialysis for 1 year. Patients were enrolled starting in March 2006 and follow-up was completed by May 2010. After the 1-year trial concluded, FHN Nocturnal participants were free to modify their hemodialysis prescription.Outcomes & measurementsWe obtained dates of death and kidney transplantation through July 2011 using linkage to the US Renal Data System and queries of study centers. We used log-rank tests and Cox regression to relate mortality to the initial randomization assignment.ResultsMedian follow-up for the trial and posttrial observational period was 3.7 years. In the nocturnal arm, there were 2 deaths during the 12-month trial period and an additional 12 deaths during the extended follow-up. In the conventional arm, the numbers of deaths were 1 and 4, respectively. In the nocturnal dialysis group, the overall mortality HR was 3.88 (95% CI, 1.27-11.79; P=0.01). Using as-treated analysis with a 12-month running treatment average, the HR for mortality was 3.06 (95% CI, 1.11-8.43; P=0.03). Six-month running treatment data analysis showed an HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.44-3.22; P=0.7).LimitationsThese results should be interpreted cautiously due to a surprisingly low (0.03 deaths/patient-year) mortality rate for individuals randomly assigned to conventional home hemodialysis, low statistical power for the mortality comparison due to the small sample size, and the high rate of hemodialysis prescription changes.ConclusionsPatients randomly assigned to nocturnal hemodialysis had a higher mortality rate than those randomly assigned to conventional dialysis. The implications of this result require further investigation.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of frequent in-center hemodialysis.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of frequent in-center hemodialysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets