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

Juan Gregorio Gonzalez Perez, Luke David Vale, S. C. Stearns, S. Wordsworth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

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 (HID), 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 pound46,000 and pound62,050 at 5 and 10 years than home HD pound47,660 and pound63,540. 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 pound6,665 at 5 years and pound3,943 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)32-39
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Volume21
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Keywords

  • cost-benefit analysis
  • quality-adjusted life years
  • hemodialysis home
  • renal dialysis
  • health service costs

Cite this

Hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options. / Gonzalez Perez, Juan Gregorio; Vale, Luke David; Stearns, S. C.; Wordsworth, S.

In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2005, p. 32-39.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gonzalez Perez, Juan Gregorio ; Vale, Luke David ; Stearns, S. C. ; Wordsworth, S. / Hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2005 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 32-39.
@article{844d9a8ae5964ae1911bea4f7d0132ac,
title = "Hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options",
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 (HID), 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 pound46,000 and pound62,050 at 5 and 10 years than home HD pound47,660 and pound63,540. 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 pound6,665 at 5 years and pound3,943 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 analysis, quality-adjusted life years, hemodialysis home, renal dialysis, health service costs",
author = "{Gonzalez Perez}, {Juan Gregorio} and Vale, {Luke David} and Stearns, {S. C.} and S. Wordsworth",
year = "2005",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "32--39",
journal = "International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care",
issn = "0266-4623",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options

AU - Gonzalez Perez, Juan Gregorio

AU - Vale, Luke David

AU - Stearns, S. C.

AU - Wordsworth, S.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - 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 (HID), 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 pound46,000 and pound62,050 at 5 and 10 years than home HD pound47,660 and pound63,540. 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 pound6,665 at 5 years and pound3,943 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.

AB - 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 (HID), 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 pound46,000 and pound62,050 at 5 and 10 years than home HD pound47,660 and pound63,540. 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 pound6,665 at 5 years and pound3,943 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.

KW - cost-benefit analysis

KW - quality-adjusted life years

KW - hemodialysis home

KW - renal dialysis

KW - health service costs

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 32

EP - 39

JO - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

JF - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

SN - 0266-4623

IS - 1

ER -