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.

Peritoneal dialysis: Status report in South and South East Asia.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) as a modality of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is largely underutilized globally. We analyzed PD utilization, impact of economic status, projected growth and impact of state policy(s) on PD growth in South Asia and Southeast Asia (SA&SEA) region. METHODS: The National Nephrology Societies of the region responded to a questionnaire on KRT practices. The responses were based on the latest registry data, acceptable community-based studies and societal perceptions. The representative countries were divided into high income and higher-middle income (HI & HMI) and low income and lower-middle income (LI & LMI) groups. RESULTS: Data provided by 15 countries showed almost similar percentage of GDP as health expenditure (4%-7%). But there was a significant difference in per capita income (HI & HMI -US$ 28 129 vs. LI & LMI - US$ 1710.2) between the groups. Even after having no significant difference in monthly cost of haemodialysis (HD) and PD in LI & LMI countries, they have poorer PD utilization as compared to HI & HMI countries (3.4% vs. 10.1%); the reason being lack of formal training/incentives and time constraints for the nephrologist while lack of reimbursement and poor general awareness of modalities has been a snag for the patients. The region expects ≥10% PD growth in the near future. Hong Kong and Thailand with 'PD first' policy have the highest PD utilization. CONCLUSION: Important deterrents to PD underutilization were lack of PD centric policies, lackadaisical patient/physician's attitude, lack of structured patient awareness programs, formal training programs and affordability.

Impact of National Economy and Policies on End-Stage Kidney Care in South Asia and Southeast Asia.

BACKGROUND: The association between economic status and kidney disease is incompletely explored even in countries with higher economy (HE); the situation is complex in lower economies (LE) of South Asia and Southeast Asia (SA and SEA). METHODS: Fifteen countries of SA and SEA categorized as HE and LE, represented by the representatives of the national nephrology societies, participated in this questionnaire and interview-based assessment of the impact of economic status on renal care. RESULTS: Average incidence and prevalence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) per million population (pmp) are 1.8 times and 3.3 times higher in HE. Hemodialysis is the main renal replacement therapy (RRT) (HE-68%, LE-63%). Funding of dialysis in HE is mainly by state (65%) or insurance bodies (30%); out of pocket expenses (OOPE) are high in LE (41%). Highest cost for hemodialysis is in Brunei and Singapore, and lowest in Myanmar and Nepal. Median number of dialysis machines/1000 ESKD population is 110 in HE and 53 in LE. Average number of machines/dialysis units in HE is 2.7 times higher than LE. The HE countries have 9 times more dialysis centers pmp (median HE-17, LE-02) and 16 times more nephrologist density (median HE-14.8 ppm, LE-0.94 ppm). Dialysis sessions >2/week is frequently followed in HE (84%) and <2/week in LE (64%). "On-demand" hemodialysis (<2 sessions/week) is prevalent in LE. Hemodialysis dropout rates at one year are lower in HE (12.3%; LE 53.4%), death being the major cause (HE-93.6%; LE-43.8%); renal transplants constitute 4% (Brunei) to 39% (Hong Kong) of the RRT in HE. ESKD burden is expected to increase >10% in all the HE countries except Taiwan, 10%-20% in the majority of LE countries. CONCLUSION: Economic disparity in SA and SEA is reflected by poor dialysis infrastructure and penetration, inadequate manpower, higher OOPE, higher dialysis dropout rates, and lesser renal transplantations in LE countries. Utility of RRT can be improved by state funding and better insurance coverage.

Methodological challenges to collecting clinical and economic outcome data: Lessons from the pilot dialysis outcomes India study.

AIM: Contemporary data on clinical and economic outcomes and quality of care amongst dialysis patients in India are not available. This pilot prospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of data collection and follow up within routine dialysis practice to inform setting up a dialysis registry. METHODS: An electronic instrument was developed to collect information on clinical and socio-demographic characteristics, outcome and out-of-pocket expenditure on incident patients commencing haemodialysis (HD) at two centres. Dialysis unit staff were trained in collecting and entering information on an electronic case record form. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months to ascertain outcomes and treatment related costs. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients (37 females, age 47.5 ± 17.2 years) were enrolled. After 1 year, 38 (32%) patients were continuing on HD; 35 (29%) had died, 30 (25%) underwent a kidney transplant, and 16 (13%) had stopped dialysis. We noted a high prevalence of catastrophic health expenditure. Data collection was facilitated by appointing a designated staff member who received an incentive. Collection of financial information, clinical course for patients transferring out of the primary unit and the cause of death, when it occurred out of hospital was challenging. CONCLUSION: Prospective data collection of incident dialysis patients was feasible but is resource-intensive. High out-of-pocket costs force some patients to stop dialysis and can generate a sense of despair. Poor patient experiences and suspicion over the use of such data adversely affects collection of important clinical and health economic data.

Haemodialysis vascular access: current practices amongst Indian nephrologists.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing number of haemodialysis (HD) patients in India, little is known about vascular access practice. We investigated the use and cost of different vascular accesses by Indian nephrologists. METHODS: An online survey was emailed to 920 Indian nephrologists and 388 (42.1%) responded; 98.5% of whom were responsible for managing dialysis patients, 98% in hospitals. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of patients initiated renal replacement therapy with HD, 7% with peritoneal dialysis, 10% kidney transplantation and 19% conservative care. Forty-eight percent of patients were self-paying, 26% had employee reimbursement and 23% had insurance. According to 59% of responders, more than three-quarters of patients started dialysis with uncuffed catheter, less than one-quarter started dialysis with fistula; and very few used grafts or tunnelled catheters. Among prevalent HD patients, over half were dialysing with fistula (79% nephrologists), rather than uncuffed catheters (15% nephrologists) or grafts (<1% nephrologists). Sixteen percent reported at least one catheter-related sepsis in more than half of patients. Placement of uncuffed catheters cost US$160 in 92% facilities, whereas tunnelled catheters cost US$320 in 46% of facilities. An arteriovenous fistula (AVF) could be created for US$160 in 40%, and US$320 in 90% of centres. Thirty-five percent of nephrologists reported that grafts were not placed at their institute and where they were available, the average cost was over US$480. Forty-six percent of nephrologists had access to pre-dialysis clinics, <30% to vascular access programmes, and <17% conducted regular vascular access audits. CONCLUSIONS: The survey provides a snapshot of the current status of vascular access care in HD patients and highlights need for pre-dialysis clinics, vascular access services and registry audits.