RESUMO
Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus (CKD-aP) is a common condition amongst patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Several studies have confirmed that more than four out of ten early-stage CKD patients suffer from this condition, while its prevalence among CKD patients on dialysis reaches up to seven out of ten. It is noted to be associated with other disabling symptoms and serious outcomes. It has significant impact on sleep, mood, daily activities, and quality of life of CKD patients, and increased mortality risk of patients on hemodialysis. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study found 17% higher mortality among patients with moderate to extreme pruritus compared with patients with no or mild pruritus. Despite its high prevalence, ill-effect, and suffering associated with it, CKD-aP remains surprisingly under-reported on the patient's part and under-recognized by the healthcare team. Even upon being noticed, it remains unattended and poorly treated. Its etiopathogenesis is complex and not fully understood. Many treatment options are available but good quality evidence about most of those is absent, and to date, only two medications are approved for use in this condition. While a validated guideline is very much required for the benefit of the patients and caretakers, further research on several aspects of this issue is required.
RESUMO
Background and objective The incidence and prevalence of patients requiring renal replacement therapies (RRTs) are increasing worldwide and a large number of these patients die prematurely due to the unavailability of treatment. While in-center hemodialysis remains the most commonly practiced modality globally, more and more patients find it unsuitable due to their frail condition, difficulty in ambulation, and time lost in traveling, etc. Such patients find the self-administered or nurse-assisted home hemodialysis (NAHHD) more suitable. The costly and recurring nature of these therapies prompted us to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness aspect of these two treatment modalities. Thus, the aim of the study was to investigate if home hemodialysis (HHD) with a portable hemodialysis machine was cost-effective in comparison to in-center hemodialysis for patients of end-stage renal failure (ESRF) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This is the first study of its kind to be conducted in the UAE. Methodology The study topic was developed based on an informal inquiry from the health regulator of Abu Dhabi if HHD was cost-effective compared to in-center hemodialysis with an emphasis on a portable dialysis machine. No such head-to-head study performed in the UAE was available. Hence, a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) design was chosen as the investigative method. An outline of the study was drafted, and a literature search of Science of Web, PubMed, and Cochrane Evidence was performed using the keywords "Home Hemodialysis", "home-based Dialysis", "Cost-effectiveness of Dialysis", "Cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapy", etc. A review of the article titles was performed to include the articles relevant to the cost of RRTs and the economic burden of ESRF. Full text and abstracts of those articles were retrieved, studied, and, the articles that were found not relevant were excluded. The remaining articles were studied and used in the evidence synthesis. DIMI was chosen to represent a standard type of recently developed portable dialysis machines. Results It was interesting to find out during the review that HHD and in-center hemodialysis had been developed simultaneously but the former had eventually fallen out of favor. The review revealed that HHD is not only as effective as in-center hemodialysis but is also associated with better survival benefits over the latter. Several studies have found it to be significantly cost-effective compared to in-center hemodialysis. Newer types of HHD machines make it easier for the patients or their family/caregivers to administer it safely and effectively at home and while traveling. They have regenerated interest in HHD and the Medicare administration in the USA has already decided to make use of it at a more frequent rate. Conclusion Based on the evidence in the available literature, HHD is cost-effective when compared to in-center hemodialysis in terms of survival benefits, quality of life (QoL) of patients, and monetary savings. Newer portable bedside dialysis machines provide better safety and have simplified the procedure of hemodialysis, making HHD more acceptable to patients and caregivers. We believe HHD should be the preferred modality of treatment instead of in-center hemodialysis, and that applies to UAE too.