IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v14y2016i2d10.1007_s40258-015-0212-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost Effectiveness of High-Dose versus Conventional Haemodialysis: a Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • S. Laplante

    (Baxter Healthcare Corporation)

  • F. X. Liu

    (Baxter Healthcare Corporation)

  • B. Culleton

    (Baxter Healthcare Corporation)

  • A. Bernardo

    (Baxter Healthcare Corporation)

  • Denise King

    () (Abacus International)

  • P. Hudson

    (Abacus International)

Abstract

Abstract Background End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is fatal if untreated. In the absence of transplant, approximately 50 % of dialysis patients die within 5 years. Although more frequent and/or longer haemodialysis (high-dose HD) improves survival, this regimen may add to the burden on dialysis services and healthcare costs. This systematic review summarised the cost effectiveness of high-dose HD compared with conventional HD. Methods English language publications reporting the cost-utility/effectiveness of high-dose HD in adults with ESRD were identified via a search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Publications comparing any form of high-dose HD with conventional HD were reviewed. Results Seven publications (published between 2003 and 2014) reporting cost-utility analyses from the public healthcare payer perspective were identified. High-dose HD in-centre was compared with in-centre conventional HD in one US model; all other analyses (UK, Canada) compared high-dose HD at home with in-centre conventional HD (n = 5) or in-centre/home conventional HD (n = 1). The time horizon varied from one year to lifetime. Similar survival for high-dose HD and conventional HD was assumed, with the impact of higher survival only assessed in the sensitivity analyses of three models. High-dose HD at home was found to be cost effective compared with conventional HD in all six analyses. The analysis comparing high-dose HD in-centre with conventional in-centre HD produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio generally acceptable for the USA, but not for Europe, Canada or Australia. Conclusion High-dose HD can be cost effective when performed at home. Future analyses assuming survival benefits for high-dose HD compared with conventional HD are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Laplante & F. X. Liu & B. Culleton & A. Bernardo & Denise King & P. Hudson, 2016. "The Cost Effectiveness of High-Dose versus Conventional Haemodialysis: a Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 185-193, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-015-0212-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-015-0212-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-015-0212-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Takeru Shiroiwa & Yoon-Kyoung Sung & Takashi Fukuda & Hui-Chu Lang & Sang-Cheol Bae & Kiichiro Tsutani, 2010. "International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 422-437.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Suzanne Laplante & Frank X. Liu & Bruce Culleton & Angelito Bernardo & Denise King & Pollyanna Hudson, 2016. "Authors’ Reply to Gandjour “The Cost Effectiveness of High-Dose Versus Conventional Haemodialysis: A Systematic Review”," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 731-732, December.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-015-0212-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.