A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury.

INTRODUCTION: Though cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have evaluated continuous renal replacement therapy (RRTs) and intermittent RRTs in acute kidney injury (AKI) patients; it is yet to establish which RRT technique is most cost-effective. We systematically reviewed the current evidence from CEAs of CRRT versus IRRT in patients with AKI. AREAS COVERED: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases searched for CEAs comparing two RRTs. Overall, seven CEAs, two from Brazil and one from US, Canada, Colombia, Belgium, and Argentina were included. Five CEAs used Markov model, three reported following CHEERS, none accounted indirect costs. Time horizon varied from 1-year-lifetime. Marginal QALY gain with CRRT compared to IRRT was reported across CEAs. Older CEAs found CRRT to be costlier and not cost-effective than IRRT (ICER 2019 US$: 152,671$/QALY); latest CEAs (industry-sponsored) reported CRRT to be cost-saving versus IRRT (-117,614$/QALY). Risk of mortality, dialysis dependence, and incidence of renal recovery were the key drivers of cost-effectiveness. EXPERT OPINION: CEAs of RRTs for AKI show conflicting findings with secular trends. Latest CEAs suggested CRRT to be cost-effective versus IRRT with dialysis dependence rate as major driver of cost-effectiveness. Future CEAs, preferably non-industry sponsored, may account for indirect costs to improve the generalizability of CEAs.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Versus Intermittent Renal Replacement Therapies in Acute Kidney Injury: Perspective of the Social Services for the Elderly in Argentina.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a public health problem that affects millions of hospitalized patients worldwide. In Argentina, evidence suggests that its incidence has risen in recent years. When severe, AKI may require a renal replacement therapy (RRT) where continuous RRT (CRRT) and intermittent RRT (IRRT) are plausible options for patients in the intensive care unit. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost utility of CRRT versus IRRT for the National Institute of Social Services for Retirees and Pensioners, the largest social security health insurance for elders in Argentina. METHODS: This was a model-based cost-utility analysis. Long-term costs and health outcomes were estimated for a hypothetical cohort with a Markov model. Parameters used were obtained from published literature and validated with local experts. Local costs were estimated and expressed in $AR of 2016. Several sensitivity analyses were run to analyze the impact of uncertainty on results. RESULTS: Continuous RRT dominated IRRT by cumulating over the model more quality-adjusted life years and less costs. Total discounted quality-adjusted life years for both cohorts were 1049 and 1034, respectively, and total costs were $95 362 and $103 871. Cost-effectiveness (CE) results reflect these differences in favor of CRRT with a deterministic cost-saving incremental CE ratio and a probability of CRRT being CE of 65.4%, considering a CE threshold of 1 gross domestic product per capita. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous RRT for patients with AKI eligible for CRRT or IRRT would probably be a cost-effective intervention for the National Institute of Social Services for Retirees and Pensioners' view. Nevertheless, there is considerable uncertainty around results, mainly due to the lack of adequate controlled studies and local data on the prognosis of these patients in Argentina.