Dataset Information

Peritoneal dialysis and in-centre haemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With limited healthcare resources available, cost-effective provision of dialysis to patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is important.

Objectives

To assess the cost-effectiveness of varying levels of peritoneal dialysis (PD) use versus current practice among incident ESRD patients requiring dialysis.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of increasing uptake of PD to 39 and 50 % versus current practice of 22 % PD from a UK National Health Service perspective for the year of 2013-2014. A scenario with 5 % PD was also considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Five- and 10-year discounted total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient for the current scenario (22 % PD) were £96,307 and 2.104, and £133,339 and 3.301, respectively. Use of PD in 39 % of patients resulted in 5- and 10-year total per-patient cost savings of £3,180 and £4,102 versus current usage alongside total per-patient QALY increases of 0.017 and 0.020. Use of PD in 50 % of patients resulted in 5- and 10-year per-patient cost savings of £5,238 and £6,758 versus current usage alongside per-patient QALY increases of 0.029 and 0.033. Thus, increasing use of PD was associated with marginally better outcomes and lower costs. Cost savings were driven by lower treatment costs and reduced transport requirements for PD versus haemodialysis. Reducing PD use was associated with higher costs and a small reduction in QALYs.

Conclusions

These findings suggest increasing PD use among incident dialysis patients would be cost-effective, associated with reduced costs and potential modest improvements in quality of life.

SUBMITTER: Treharne C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4110409 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveThe kidney failure population is growing, necessitating the expansion of dialysis programs. These programs are costly and require a substantial amount of health care resources. Tools that accurately forecast resource use can aid efficient allocation. The objective of this study is to describe the development of an economic simulation model that incorporates treatment history and detailed modality transitions for patients with kidney disease using real-world data to estimate associated costs, utility, and survival by initiating modality.Study designCost-utility model with microsimulation.Setting & populationAdult incident maintenance dialysis patients in Canada who initiated facility-based hemodialysis (HD) or home peritoneal dialysis (PD) between 2004 and 2013.InterventionHD and PD.OutcomesCosts (related to dialysis, transplantation, infections, and hospitalizations), survival, utility, and dialysis modality mix over time.Model perspective & timeframeThe model took the perspective of the health care payer. Patients were followed up for 10 years from initiation of dialysis. Our cost-utility analysis compared the intervention with receiving no treatment.ResultsDuring a 10-year time horizon, the cost-utility ratio for all patients initiating dialysis was $103,779 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison to no treatment. Patients who initiated with facility-based HD were treated at a cost-utility ratio of $104,880/QALY and patients who initiated with home PD were treated at a cost-utility ratio of $83,762/QALY. During this time horizon, the total mean cost and QALYs per patient were estimated at $350,774 ± $204,704 and 3.38 ± 2.05) QALYs respectively.LimitationsThe results do not include costs from the societal perspective. Rare patient trajectories were unable to be assessed.ConclusionsThis model demonstrates that patients who initiated dialysis with PD were treated more cost-effectively than those who initiated with HD during a 10-year time horizon.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with ?-thalassaemia major experience chronic iron overload due to regular blood transfusions. Chronic iron overload can be treated using iron-chelating therapies such as desferrioxamine (DFO), deferiprone (DFP) and deferasirox (DFX) monotherapy, or DFO-DFP combination therapy.ObjectivesThis study evaluated the relative cost effectiveness of these regimens over a 5-year timeframe from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, including personal and social services.MethodsA Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the treatment regimens over 5 years. Based on published randomized controlled trial evidence, it was assumed that all four treatment regimens had a comparable effect on serum ferritin concentration (SFC) and liver iron concentration (LIC), and that DFP was more effective for reducing cardiac morbidity and mortality. Published utility scores for route of administration were used, with subcutaneously administered DFO assumed to incur a greater quality of life (QoL) burden than the oral chelators DFP and DFX. Healthcare resource use, drug costs (2010/2011 costs), and utilities associated with adverse events were also considered, with the effect of varying all parameters assessed in sensitivity analysis. Incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated for each treatment, with cost effectiveness expressed as incremental cost per QALY. Assumptions that DFP conferred no cardiac morbidity, mortality, or morbidity and mortality benefit were also explored in scenario analysis.ResultsDFP was the dominant strategy in all scenarios modelled, providing greater QALY gains at a lower cost. Sensitivity analysis showed that DFP dominated all other treatments unless the QoL burden associated with the route of administration was greater for DFP than for DFO, which is unlikely to be the case. DFP had >99 % likelihood of being cost effective against all comparators at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY.ConclusionsIn this analysis, DFP appeared to be the most cost-effective treatment available for managing chronic iron overload in ?-thalassaemia patients. Use of DFP in these patients could therefore result in substantial cost savings.