IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1001307.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility-Based Quality of Life in Chronic Kidney Disease Treatments

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie Wyld
  • Rachael Lisa Morton
  • Andrew Hayen
  • Kirsten Howard
  • Angela Claire Webster

Abstract

Melanie Wyld and colleagues examined previously published studies to assess pooled utility-based quality of life of the various treatments for chronic kidney disease. They conclude that the highest utility was for kidney transplants, with home-based automated peritoneal dialysis being second. Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common and costly condition to treat. Economic evaluations of health care often incorporate patient preferences for health outcomes using utilities. The objective of this study was to determine pooled utility-based quality of life (the numerical value attached to the strength of an individual's preference for a specific health outcome) by CKD treatment modality. Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of peer-reviewed published articles and of PhD dissertations published through 1 December 2010 that reported utility-based quality of life (utility) for adults with late-stage CKD. Studies reporting utilities by proxy (e.g., reported by a patient's doctor or family member) were excluded. Conclusions: For patients with late-stage CKD, treatment with dialysis is associated with a significant decrement in quality of life compared to treatment with kidney transplantation. These findings provide evidence-based utility estimates to inform economic evaluations of kidney therapies, useful for policy makers and in individual treatment discussions with CKD patients. Background: Ill health can adversely affect an individual's quality of life, particularly if caused by long-term (chronic) conditions, such as chronic kidney disease—in the United States alone, 23 million people have chronic kidney disease, of whom 570,000 are treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation. In order to measure the cost-effectiveness of interventions to manage medical conditions, health economists use an objective measurement known as quality-adjusted life years. However, although useful, quality-adjusted life years are often criticized for not taking into account the views and preferences of the individuals with the medical conditions. A measurement called a utility solves this problem. Utilities are a numerical value (measured on a 0 to 1 scale, where 0 represents death and 1 represents full health) of the strength of an individual's preference for specified health-related outcomes, as measured by “instruments” (questionnaires) that rate direct comparisons or assess quality of life. Why Was This Study Done?: Previous studies have suggested that, in people with chronic kidney disease, quality of life (as measured by utility) is higher in those with a functioning kidney transplant than in those on dialysis. However, currently, it is unclear whether the type of dialysis affects quality of life: hemodialysis is a highly technical process that directly filters the blood, usually must be done 2–4 times a week, and can only be performed in a health facility; peritoneal dialysis, in which fluids are infused into the abdominal cavity, can be done nightly at home (automated peritoneal dialysis) or throughout the day (continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis). In this study, the researchers reviewed and assimilated all of the available evidence to investigate whether quality of life in people with chronic kidney disease (as measured by utility) differed according to treatment type. What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: The researchers did a comprehensive search of 11 databases to identify all relevant studies that included people with severe (stage 3, 4, or 5) chronic kidney disease, their form of treatment, and information on utilities—either reported directly, or included in quality of life instruments (SF-36), so the researchers could calculate utilities by using a validated algorithm. The researchers also recorded the prevalence rates of diabetes in study participants. Then, using statistical models that adjusted for various factors, including treatment type and the method of measuring utilities, the researchers were able to calculate the pooled utilities of each form of treatment for chronic kidney disease. What Do These Findings Mean?: These findings suggest that in people with chronic kidney disease, renal transplantation is the best treatment option to improve quality of life. For those on dialysis, home-based automated peritoneal dialysis may improve quality of life more than the other forms of dialysis: this finding is important, as this type of dialysis is not as widely used as other forms and is also cheaper than hemodialysis. Furthermore, these findings suggest that patients who choose conservative care have significantly lower quality of life than patients treated with dialysis, a finding that warrants further investigation. Overall, in addition to helping to inform economic evaluations of treatment options, the information from this analysis can help guide clinicians caring for patients with chronic kidney disease in their discussions about possible treatment options. Additional Information: Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie Wyld & Rachael Lisa Morton & Andrew Hayen & Kirsten Howard & Angela Claire Webster, 2012. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility-Based Quality of Life in Chronic Kidney Disease Treatments," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-10, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001307
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Redeker, Steef & Massey, Emma K. & van Merweland, Ruben G. & Weimar, Willem & Ismail, Sohal Y. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2022. "Induced demand in kidney replacement therapy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(10), pages 1062-1068.
    2. Pedro García-Martínez & Rafael Ballester-Arnal & Kavita Gandhi-Morar & Jesús Castro-Calvo & Vicente Gea-Caballero & Raúl Juárez-Vela & Carlos Saus-Ortega & Raimunda Montejano-Lozoya & Eva María Sosa-P, 2021. "Perceived Stress in Relation to Quality of Life and Resilience in Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Hemodialysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-10, January.
    3. Trevor A. Ellison & Samantha Clark & Jonathan C. Hong & Kevin D. Frick & Dorry L. Segev, 2021. "Potential Unintended Consequences of National Infectious Disease Screening Strategies in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 403-414, May.
    4. Fabio Ferretti & Andrea Pozza & Maurilio Pallassini & Lorenzo Righi & Fulvia Marini & Sabrina Adami & Anna Coluccia, 2019. "Gender invariance of dignity in non-terminal elderly patients with chronic diseases: a multicentric study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1645-1656, May.
    5. Fan Yang & Nancy Devlin & Nan Luo, 2019. "Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 99-105, February.
    6. Julia Widén & Magnus Ivarsson & Lovisa Schalin & Polina Vrouchou & Matthias Schwenkglenks & Olof Heimbürger & Zanfina Ademi & C. Simone Sutherland, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Patiromer in Combination with Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone System Inhibitors for Chronic Kidney Disease in Sweden," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 747-764, July.
    7. Steef Redeker & Sohal Ismail & Hester V. Eeren & Emma K. Massey & Willem Weimar & Mark Oppe & Jan Busschbach, 2022. "A dynamic Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Kidney Team at Home intervention in The Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(4), pages 597-606, June.
    8. Baris Ata & Yichuan Ding & Stefanos Zenios, 2021. "An Achievable-Region-Based Approach for Kidney Allocation Policy Design with Endogenous Patient Choice," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 36-54, 1-2.
    9. Adedokun Oluwafemi Ojelabi & Afolabi Elijah Bamgboye & Jonathan Ling, 2019. "Preference-based measure of health-related quality of life and its determinants in sickle cell disease in Nigeria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Fan Yang & Carlos K. H. Wong & Nan Luo & James Piercy & Rebecca Moon & James Jackson, 2019. "Mapping the kidney disease quality of life 36-item short form survey (KDQOL-36) to the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in patients undergoing dialysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1195-1206, November.
    11. Wenjuan Fan & Yang Zong & Subodha Kumar, 2022. "Optimal treatment of chronic kidney disease with uncertainty in obtaining a transplantable kidney: an MDP based approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 269-302, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001307. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.