IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

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

Listed author(s):
  • 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)

Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    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 look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

    Volume (Year): 14 (2016)
    Issue (Month): 2 (April)
    Pages: 185-193

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-015-0212-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-015-0212-3
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    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)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    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)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.