Clinical outcomes and healthcare use associated with optimal ESRD starts.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between optimal end-stage renal disease (ESRD) starts and clinical and utilization outcomes in an integrated healthcare delivery system. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study in 6 regions of an integrated healthcare delivery system, 2011-2013. METHODS: Propensity score techniques were used to match 1826 patients who experienced an optimal start of renal replacement therapy (initial therapy of hemodialysis via an arteriovenous fistula or graft, peritoneal dialysis, or pre-emptive transplant) to 1826 patients who experienced a nonoptimal start (hemodialysis via a central venous catheter). Outcomes included 12-month rates of sepsis, mortality, and utilization (inpatient stays, total inpatient days, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits to primary care and specialty care). RESULTS: Optimal starts were associated with a 65% reduction in sepsis (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.29-0.42) and a 56% reduction in 12-month mortality (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36-0.53). Optimal starts were also associated with lower utilization, except for nephrology visits. Large utilization differences were observed for total inpatient days (9.4 for optimal starts vs 27.5 for nonoptimal starts; relative rate [RR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.38-0.52) and outpatient visits for specialty care other than nephrology or vascular surgery (12.5 vs 18.3, respectively; RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients with nonoptimal starts, patients with optimal ESRD starts have lower morbidity and mortality and less use of inpatient and outpatient care. Late-stage chronic kidney disease and ESRD care in an integrated system may be associated with greater benefits than those previously reported in the literature.

Healthcare costs in chronic kidney disease and renal replacement therapy: a population-based cohort study in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4 or 5 not on dialysis (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73m2), peritoneal dialysis, haemodialysis and in transplanted patients with matched general population comparators. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Swedish national healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Prevalent adult patients with CKD 4 or 5 (n=1046, mean age 68 years), on peritoneal dialysis (n=101; 64 years), on haemodialysis (n=460; 65 years) and with renal transplants (n=825; 52 years) were identified in Stockholm County clinical quality registers for renal disease on 1 January 2010. 5 general population comparators from the same county were matched to each patient by age, sex and index year. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual healthcare costs in 2009 incurred through inpatient and hospital-based outpatient care and dispensed prescription drugs ascertained from nationwide healthcare registers. Secondary outcomes were annual number of hospital days and outpatient care visits. RESULTS: Patients on haemodialysis had the highest mean annual cost (€87 600), which was 1.49 (95% CI 1.38 to 1.60) times that observed in peritoneal dialysis (€58 600). The mean annual cost was considerably lower in transplanted patients (€15 500) and in the CKD group (€9600). In patients on haemodialysis, outpatient care costs made up more than two-thirds (€62 500) of the total, while costs related to fluids ($29 900) was the largest cost component in patients on peritoneal dialysis (51%). Compared with their matched general population comparators, the mean annual cost (95% CI) in patients on haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, transplanted patients and patients with CKD was 45 (39 to 51), 29 (22 to 37), 11 (10 to 13) and 4.0 (3.6 to 4.5) times higher, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The mean annual costs were ∼50% higher in patients on haemodialysis than in those on peritoneal dialysis. Compared with the general population, costs were substantially elevated in all groups, from 4-fold in patients with CKD to 11, 29 and 45 times higher in transplanted patients and patients on peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis, respectively.

Cost comparison of kidney transplant versus dialysis in Brazil.

This study aimed to compare the direct medical costs of renal transplantation and renal replacement therapies, specifically hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). Renal replacement therapies costs were based on data published in the literature. Cost items for kidney transplant were identified in a private hospital based on procedure codes used for charging the SUS, and other items were taken from the literature. In the four years covered by the study, cadaver kidney transplant generated per-patient savings of BRL 37,000 and BRL 74,000 compared to hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, respectively. Savings were even greater with living donor kidney transplant: BRL 46,000 and BRL 82,000 compared to hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, respectively. This result, together with survival and quality-of-life analyses, characterizes kidney transplant as the best clinical and financial alternative, thus supporting public policies for organ transplants in Brazil.

Uma comparação dos custos do transplante renal em relação às diálises no Brasil / Cost comparison of kidney transplant versus dialysis in Brazil / Una comparación de los costes del trasplante renal en relación con las diálisis en Brasil

Resumo: O objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar os custos médicos diretos do transplante renal e das terapias renais substitutivas, especificamente a hemodiálise e a diálise peritoneal, sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Os custos das terapias renais substitutivas foram extraídos de informações publicadas na literatura. Os itens de custo previstos do transplante renal foram identificados em um hospital privado mediante coleta dos códigos dos procedimentos utilizados para a cobrança do SUS e os demais itens extraídos da literatura. O resultado desta pesquisa indica que, no período dos quatro anos coberto por este estudo, o transplante renal de doador falecido gera uma economia, por paciente, de R$ 37 mil e R$ 74 mil em relação à hemodiálise e à diálise peritoneal, respectivamente. Quanto ao transplante renal de doador vivo, as economias são ainda maiores: R$ 46 mil e R$ 82 mil em relação à hemodiálise e à diálise peritoneal, respectivamente. Este resultado, aliado a análises de sobrevida e qualidade de vida, pode caracterizar o transplante renal como a melhor alternativa do ponto de vista financeiro e clínico, auxiliando na formulação de políticas públicas relacionadas com os transplantes de órgãos no Brasil.

Abstract: This study aimed to compare the direct medical costs of renal transplantation and renal replacement therapies, specifically hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). Renal replacement therapies costs were based on data published in the literature. Cost items for kidney transplant were identified in a private hospital based on procedure codes used for charging the SUS, and other items were taken from the literature. In the four years covered by the study, cadaver kidney transplant generated per-patient savings of BRL 37,000 and BRL 74,000 compared to hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, respectively. Savings were even greater with living donor kidney transplant: BRL 46,000 and BRL 82,000 compared to hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, respectively. This result, together with survival and quality-of-life analyses, characterizes kidney transplant as the best clinical and financial alternative, thus supporting public policies for organ transplants in Brazil.

Resumen: El objetivo del presente estudio fue comparar los costes médicos directos del trasplante renal y de las terapias renales substitutivas, específicamente la hemodiálisis y la diálisis peritoneal, bajo la perspectiva del Sistema Único de Salud (SUS). Los costes de las terapias renales substitutivas se extrajeron de información publicada en la literatura. Los ítems de coste previstos del trasplante renal se identificaron en un hospital privado, a partir de la recogida de códigos de procedimientos utilizados para el cobro del SUS y los demás ítems extraídos de la literatura. El resultado de esta investigación indica que, en el período de los 4 años cubierto por este estudio, el trasplante renal del donante fallecido genera un ahorro, por paciente, de R$ 37 mil y R$ 74 mil en relación al hemodiálisis y al diálisis peritoneal, respectivamente. En cuanto al trasplante renal del donante vivo, los ahorros son incluso mayores: R$ 46 mil y R$ 82 mil, en relación a la hemodiálisis y a la diálisis peritoneal, respectivamente. Este resultado, junto con análisis de supervivencia y calidad de vida, puede caracterizar el trasplante renal como la mejor alternativa desde el punto de vista financiero y clínico, auxiliando en la formulación de políticas públicas relacionadas con los trasplantes de órganos en Brasil.

Nutritional intervention in uremia--myth or reality?

Nutritional intervention in uremia, specifically the restricted protein diet, has been under debate for decades. The results of various clinical trials have not been concordant, as some studies have reported positive effects of the low-protein diets, whereas others have shown no benefit. Recently published data show that the restricted protein diets seem to be effective and safe in ameliorating nitrogen waste products retention and the disturbances in acid-base and calcium-phosphorus metabolism, and in delaying the initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT), without any deleterious effect on the nutritional status of patients with chronic kidney disease. The nutritional support and particularly the supplemented very low protein diet could be a new link to the RRT-integrated care model. A possible delay in RRT initiation through nutrition could have a major economic effect, particularly in developing countries, where the dialysis facilities still do not meet the requirements. However, a careful selection of motivated patients who could benefit from such a diet, closer nutritional monitoring, and dietary counseling are required.

End-stage renal disease in Indonesia: treatment development.

The number of cases of chronic kidney disease is growing rapidly, especially in the developing world. At a certain level of renal function, progression of chronic kidney disease to endstage renal disease (ESRD) is inevitable. ESRD has become a major health problem because it is a devastating medical condition, and the cost of treatment is a huge economic burden. This article presents data collected from 13 nephrology centers in response to specifically designed questionnaires. These centers were divided into 7 groups on the basis of geographic location. Previous data had given the impression that the incidence and prevalence of ESRD had increased, and the results of this study support these previous data. Since a national registry of ESRD has just been developed for Indonesia and we can present only limited data in this study, the numbers in this article underestimate the true incidence and prevalence rates. Although hemodialysis facilities have been developed rapidly, further development is still required. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis as an alternative renal replacement therapy (RRT) is only now being introduced. Kidney transplantation programs expand very slowly. RRT still imposes a high cost of treatment for ESRD; therefore, these treatments are unaffordable for most patients. Recently, government health insurance has covered financially strained families requiring RRT. Since the cost of RRT for ESRD has significantly increased over time, the management approach should be shifted from treatment to prevention.

The role of government and competing priorities in minority populations and developing nations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to analyze the role of governments in relation to the burden of chronic diseases and the potential response within the framework of competing priorities that determine resource allocation. METHODS: The following variables were analyzed both in retrospect and prospectively: the epidemiologic transition and the current effect of degenerative chronic diseases, the epidemic of diabetes and kidney disease in minority populations and developing countries, the potential response from healthcare systems, the relationship of chronic kidney disease vs quality of life and costs, and the differences between developed and developing countries. RESULTS: In Latin America, as in many other regions, cardiovascular diseases (ie, heart diseases and stroke) kill many people at early stages of renal disease. Only some survivors have access to renal replacement therapy. Those deaths can be attributed to the lack of systematized prevention and control programs to encompass chronic diseases and relate to poor engineering of adequate financial support. The Latin American Society of Nephrology and Hypertension is fostering a cardiovascular, cerebral, renal, and endocrine-metabolic health program in which 12 countries in the Latin American region implement different strategies, including allocation of national funds and strengthening of transplant programs. The focus of these strategies is on promotion, prevention, rehabilitation, research, and teaching. CONCLUSION: Developing countries should implement cardiovascular, cerebral, renal, and endocrine-metabolic health programs to improve efficiency of sanitary regulations and retrieve the huge amount of money that is spent on illnesses associated with the absence of systematized kidney disease control and follow-up programs.

Technical-economic management models in dialytic treatment: an evolving reality. The Italian experience.

Health care organisations and financial factors (particularly treatment reimbursement rates) may influence the management of ESRD. We analysed the organisation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in Italy, focusing on RRT population trends, patient distribution by treatment modality and provision, reimbursement rates, accreditation and quality control. Data from the Italian Dialysis and Transplant Registry and market research studies indicate that Italy has one of the highest dialysis and treatment acceptance rates in Europe. There is a high rate of hemodialysis (HD) and good use of peritoneal dialysis (PD), whereas the prevalence of transplanted patients is lower than the European mean. Dialytic treatment in private centers is limited by law to HD (mainly in Central-Southern Italy) and covers nearly 25-30% of the demand for RRT which means that, although Italy has a public national health care system, the provision of RRT is based on a "mixed" model. Regions with a higher prevalence of "private" dialysis have more dialysis centers, but a lower prevalence of PD since it is not permitted in private facilities, and fewer transplanted patients. The "public" system is not an automatic guarantee of quality and efficacy, and the "private" system is not necessarily a synonym of poor quality treatment due to its need to make a profit. The coexistence of private and public facilities (if well balanced and integrated) may in fact help overcoming bureaucracy in the public administration in relation to the demand for innovation and improving performances by means of fair competition.