An economic assessment model for in-center, conventional home, and more frequent home hemodialysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Komenda P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3258566 | biostudies-other | 2012 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Provider and patient enthusiasm for frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis (FHNHD) has been renewed; however, the cost-effectiveness of this technique is unknown. We performed a cost-utility analysis of FHNHD compared with conventional hemodialysis (CvHD; 4 hours three times per week) from a health payer perspective over a lifetime horizon using patient information from the Alberta NHD randomized controlled trial. Costs, including training costs, were obtained using microcosting and administrative data (CAN$2012). We determined the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Robustness was assessed using scenario, sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with CvHD (61% in-center, 14% satellite, and 25% home dialysis), FHNHD led to incremental cost savings (-$6700) and an additional 0.38 QALYs. In sensitivity analyses, when the annual probability of technique failure with FHNHD increased from 7.6% (reference case) to ?19%, FHNHD became unattractive (>$75,000/QALY). The cost/QALY gained became $13,000 if average training time for FHNHD increased from 3.7 to 6 weeks. In scenarios with alternate comparator modalities, FHNHD remained dominant compared with in-center CvHD; cost/QALYs gained were $18,500, $198,000, and $423,000 compared with satellite CvHD, home CvHD, and peritoneal dialysis, respectively. In summary, FHNHD is attractive compared with in-center CvHD in this cohort. However, the attractiveness of FHNHD varies by technique failure rate, training time, and dialysis modalities from which patients are drawn, and these variables should be considered when establishing FHNHD programs.
| S-EPMC3935585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prior small studies have shown multiple benefits of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis compared to conventional three times per week treatments. To study this further, we randomized 87 patients to three times per week conventional hemodialysis or to nocturnal hemodialysis six times per week, all with single-use high-flux dialyzers. The 45 patients in the frequent nocturnal arm had a 1.82-fold higher mean weekly stdKt/V(urea), a 1.74-fold higher average number of treatments per week, and a 2.45-fold higher average weekly treatment time than the 42 patients in the conventional arm. We did not find a significant effect of nocturnal hemodialysis for either of the two coprimary outcomes (death or left ventricular mass (measured by MRI) with a hazard ratio of 0.68, or of death or RAND Physical Health Composite with a hazard ratio of 0.91). Possible explanations for the left ventricular mass result include limited sample size and patient characteristics. Secondary outcomes included cognitive performance, self-reported depression, laboratory markers of nutrition, mineral metabolism and anemia, blood pressure and rates of hospitalization, and vascular access interventions. Patients in the nocturnal arm had improved control of hyperphosphatemia and hypertension, but no significant benefit among the other main secondary outcomes. There was a trend for increased vascular access events in the nocturnal arm. Thus, we were unable to demonstrate a definitive benefit of more frequent nocturnal hemodialysis for either coprimary outcome.
| S-EPMC3569086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cognitive impairment is common in patients with end-stage renal disease receiving hemodialysis 3 times per week.Randomized clinical trial.218 individuals participating in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Daily Trial and 81 participating in the FHN Nocturnal Trial.The Daily Trial tested in-center hemodialysis 6 times per week versus 3 times per week. The Nocturnal Trial tested home nocturnal hemodialysis 6 times per week versus home or in-center hemodialysis 3 times per week.Cognitive function was measured at baseline, month 4, and month 12. The primary outcome was performance on the Trail-Making Test, Form B, a measure of executive function, and a secondary outcome was performance on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, a measure of global cognition. The domains of attention, psychomotor speed, memory, and verbal fluency were assessed in 59 participants in the Daily Trial and 19 participants in the Nocturnal Trial.We found no benefit of frequent hemodialysis in either trial for the primary cognitive outcome (Daily Trial: OR for improvement, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.59-1.66; Nocturnal Trial: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.48-2.96). Similarly, there was no benefit of frequent hemodialysis in either trial on global cognition, the secondary cognitive outcome. Exploratory analyses in the Daily Trial suggested possible benefits of frequent hemodialysis for memory and verbal fluency, but not for attention and psychomotor speed. Exploratory analyses in the Nocturnal Trial suggested no benefit of frequent hemodialysis on attention, psychomotor speed, memory, or verbal fluency.Unblinded intervention, small sample.Frequent hemodialysis did not improve executive function or global cognition.
| S-EPMC3546160 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC2518444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKidney Failure is epidemic in many remote communities in Canada. In-centre hemodialysis is provided within these settings in satellite hemodialysis units. The key cost drivers of this program have not been fully described. Such information is important in informing the design of programs aimed at optimizing efficiency in providing dialysis and preventative chronic kidney disease care in remote communities.Design, setting, participants, and measurementsWe constructed a cost model based on data derived from 16 of Manitoba, Canada's remote satellite units. We included all costs for operation of the unit, transportation, treatment, and capital costs. All costs were presented in 2013 Canadian dollars.ResultsThe annual per-patient cost of providing hemodialysis in the satellite units ranged from $80,372 to $215,918 per patient, per year. The median per patient, per year cost was $99,888 (IQR $89,057-$122,640). Primary cost drivers were capital costs related to construction, human resource expenses, and expenses for return to tertiary care centres for health care. Costs related to transport considerably increased estimates in units that required plane or helicopter transfers.ConclusionsSatellite hemodialysis units in remote areas are more expensive on a per-patient basis than hospital hemodialysis and satellite hemodialysis available in urban areas. In some rural, remote locations, better value for money may reside in local surveillance and prevention programs in addition support for home dialysis therapies over construction of new satellite hemodialysis units.
| S-EPMC4540589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most patients with end-stage kidney disease value their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and want to know how it will be affected by their dialysis modality. We extended the findings of two prior clinical trial reports to estimate the effects of frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis on additional measures of HRQoL. The Daily Trial randomly assigned 245 patients to receive frequent (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) in-center hemodialysis. The Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 patients to receive frequent nocturnal (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) home hemodialysis. All patients were on conventional hemodialysis prior to randomization, with an average feeling thermometer score of 70 to 75 (a visual analog scale from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), an average general health scale score of 40 to 47 (a score from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), and an average dialysis session recovery time of 2 to 3 hours. Outcomes are reported as the between-treatment group differences in one-year change in HRQoL measures and analyzed using linear mixed effects models. After one year in the Daily Trial, patients assigned to frequent in-center hemodialysis reported a higher feeling thermometer score, better general health, and a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session compared to standard thrice-weekly dialysis. After one year in the Nocturnal Trial, patients assigned to frequent home hemodialysis also reported a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session, but no statistical difference in their feeling thermometer or general health scores compared to standard home dialysis schedules. Thus, patients receiving day or nocturnal hemodialysis on average recovered approximately one hour earlier from a frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis session. Patients treated in an in-center dialysis facility reported better HRQoL with frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis.
| S-EPMC5333984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Home hemodialysis remains underutilized despite observational data indicating more favorable outcomes with home compared with in-center hemodialysis. The Tablo Hemodialysis system is designed to be easy to learn and use and to facilitate adoption of home hemodialysis. The objective of the current investigational device exemption (IDE) study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Tablo managed in-center by health care professionals and in-home by patients and/or caregivers. METHODS:A prospective, multicenter, open-label, crossover trial comparing in-center and in-home hemodialysis using Tablo. There were 4 treatment periods during which hemodialysis was prescribed 4 times per week: 1-week Run-In, 8-week In-Center, 4-week Transition, and 8-week In-Home. The primary efficacy endpoint was weekly standard Kt/Vurea ≥ 2.1. The secondary efficacy endpoint was delivery of ultrafiltration (UF) within 10% of prescribed UF. We collected safety and usability data. FINDINGS:Thirty participants enrolled and 28 completed all trial periods. Adherence to the protocol requirement of 4 treatments per week was 96% in-center and 99% in-home. The average prescribed and delivered session lengths were 3.4 hours for both the In-Center and the In-Home periods. The primary efficacy endpoint for the intention-to-treat cohort was achieved in 199/200 (99.5%) of measurements during the In-Center period and 168/171 (98.3%) In-Home. The average weekly standard Kt/Vurea was 2.8 in both periods. The secondary efficacy UF endpoint was achieved in the ITT cohort in 94% in both in-center and in-home. Two prespecified adverse events (AEs) occurred during the In-Center period and 6 in the In-Home period. None of the AEs were deemed by investigators as related to Tablo. The median resolution time of alarms was 8 seconds in-center and 5 seconds in-home. CONCLUSION:Primary and secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were achieved during both In-Center and In-Home trial periods. This study confirms that Tablo is safe and effective for home hemodialysis use.
| S-EPMC7027451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPost-dialysis recovery time (DRT) has an important relationship to quality of life and survival, as identified in studies of ESRD patients on conventional dialysis. ESRD patients are often discharged from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) where on-site treatment using home hemodialysis technology is increasingly offered, but nothing is known about DRT in this patient population.MethodsFrom November 4, 2019 to June 11, 2021, within a dialysis organization providing service across 12 states and 154 SNFs, patients receiving in-SNF, more frequent dialysis (MFD) (modeled to deliver 14 treatment hours minimum per week and stdKt/V ≥2.0) were asked to describe their post-dialysis recovery time following their previous treatment, within predefined categoric choices: 0-½, ½-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-12 h, by next morning, or not even by next morning. Patients reporting DRT following at least one full-week treatment opportunity were included in a mixed model logistic regression of rapid recovery (DRT ≤2 h).FindingsTwo thousand three hundred and nine patients met the statistical modeling inclusion criteria, providing DRT on 108,876 dialysis sessions, while receiving mean (SD) 4.3 (0.96) weekly dialysis treatments. 2118 (92%) reported DRT ≤2 h. Results appeared biologically plausible, as lower odds of rapid DRT were observed for patients who were older, missed their previous treatment, or experienced intradialytic hypotension. Greater odds of rapid DRT were observed in patients receiving five dialyses in the previous week or having 160-179 mmHg pre-hemodialysis systolic blood pressure. Rapid recovery was associated with reduced mortality or hospitalization.DiscussionSNF dialysis patients receiving 5x per week MFD report rapid recovery time ≤2 h in 92% of dialyses despite advanced age, frailty, and comorbidities. Future studies will assess the practical ramifications of rapid DRT perception/experience on nursing home rehabilitation programs, which could impact patient health beyond the nursing home stay.
| S-EPMC9543222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients receiving hemodialysis often perceive their caregivers are overburdened. We hypothesize that increasing hemodialysis frequency would result in higher patient perceptions of burden on their unpaid caregivers.In two separate trials, 245 patients were randomized to receive in-center daily hemodialysis (6 days/week) or conventional hemodialysis (3 days/week) while 87 patients were randomized to receive home nocturnal hemodialysis (6 nights/week) or home conventional hemodialysis for 12 months. Changes in overall mean scores over time in the 10-question Cousineau perceived burden scale were compared.In total, 173 of 245 (70%) and 80 of 87 (92%) randomized patients in the Daily and Nocturnal Trials, respectively, reported having an unpaid caregiver at baseline or during follow-up. Relative to in-center conventional dialysis, the 12-month change in mean perceived burden score with in-center daily hemodialysis was -2.1 (95% confidence interval, -9.4 to +5.3; P=0.58). Relative to home conventional dialysis, the 12-month change in mean perceived burden score with home nocturnal dialysis was +6.1 (95% confidence interval, -0.8 to +13.1; P=0.08). After multiple imputation for missing data in the Nocturnal Trial, the relative difference between home nocturnal and home conventional hemodialysis was +9.4 (95% confidence interval, +0.55 to +18.3; P=0.04). In the Nocturnal Trial, changes in perceived burden were inversely correlated with adherence to dialysis treatments (Pearson r=-0.35; P=0.02).Relative to conventional hemodialysis, in-center daily hemodialysis did not result in higher perceptions of caregiver burden. There was a trend to higher perceived caregiver burden among patients randomized to home nocturnal hemodialysis. These findings may have implications for the adoption of and adherence to frequent nocturnal hemodialysis.
| S-EPMC4011443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany patients who receive maintenance hemodialysis experience poor sleep. Uncontrolled studies suggest frequent hemodialysis improves sleep quality, which is a strong motivation for some patients to undertake the treatment. We studied the effects of frequent in-center ('daily') and nocturnal home hemodialysis on self-reported sleep quality in two randomized trials.MethodsParticipants were randomly assigned to frequent (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) hemodialysis in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Daily (n = 245) and Nocturnal (n = 87) Trials. We used the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Problems Index II (SPI II), a validated and reliable instrument in patients with end-stage renal disease, to measure self-reported sleep quality. The SPI II is scored from 0-100, with a higher value indicating poorer quality of sleep. A mean relative decline in SPI II would suggest improved sleep quality. The primary sleep outcome was the change in the SPI II score over 12 months.ResultsIn the Daily Trial, after adjustment for baseline SPI II, subjects randomized to frequent as compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis experienced a 4.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-8.0] point adjusted mean relative decline in SPI II at 4 months and a 2.6 (95% CI -2.3-7.5) point adjusted mean relative decline at 12 months. In the Nocturnal Trial, subjects randomized to frequent nocturnal as compared with conventional home hemodialysis experienced 2.9 (95% CI -3.4-9.3) and 4.5 (95% CI -3.2-12.2) point mean relative declines at Months 4 and 12, respectively.ConclusionsAlthough a possible benefit of frequent in-center hemodialysis was observed at 4 months, neither frequent in-center hemodialysis nor home nocturnal hemodialysis demonstrated significant improvements in self-reported sleep quality compared with conventional hemodialysis at 12 months.
| S-EPMC4876972 | biostudies-literature