Comparison of cost-utility between automated peritoneal dialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) is increasing compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Surprisingly, little data about health benefits and cost of APD exist, and virtually no information comparing the cost-utility between CAPD and APD is available. We undertook this study to evaluate and compare the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and cost-utility indexes in patients on CAPD vs. APD METHODS: This was a prospective cohort of patients initiating dialysis (2008-2009). Two questionnaires were self-administered: European Research Questionnaire Quality of Life (EQ-5D) and Kidney Disease Quality of Life (short form, KDQOL-SF, Rand, Santa Monica, CA). Direct medical costs (DMC) were determined from the health provider perspective including the following medical resource utilization: outpatient clinic/emergency care, dialysis procedures, medications, laboratory tests, hospitalization, and surgery. Cost-utility indexes were calculated dividing total mean cost by indicators of the HRQOL. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were evaluated: 77 on CAPD and 46 on APD. Results of the EQ-5D and KDQOL-SF questionnaires were significantly better in APD compared to the CAPD group. Main costs in both APD and CAPD were attributed to hospitalization and dialysis procedures followed by medication and surgery. Outpatient clinic visits and laboratory tests were significantly more costly in CAPD than in APD, whereas dialysis procedures were more expensive in the latter. Cost-utility indexes were significantly better in APD compared to CAPD. CONCLUSIONS: A significant cost-utility advantage of APD vs. CAPD was observed. The annual DMC per-patient were not different between groups but the HRQOL was better in the APD compared to the CAPD group.

Dietary micronutrient intake in peritoneal dialysis patients: relationship with nutrition and inflammation status.

OBJECTIVE: To compare dietary intake of micronutrients by peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients according to their nutrition and inflammatory statuses. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study evaluated 73 patients using subjective global assessment, 24-hour dietary recall, and markers of inflammation [C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor α, and interleukin 6]. RESULTS: Half the patients had an inadequate micronutrient intake. Compared with dietary reference intakes, malnourished patients had lower intakes of iron (11 mg) and of vitamins C (45 mg) and B6 (0.8 mg). Malnourished and well-nourished patients both had lower intakes of sodium (366 mg, 524 mg respectively), potassium (1555 mg, 1963 mg), zinc (5 mg, 7 mg), calcium (645 mg, 710 mg), magnesium (161 mg, 172 mg), niacin (8 mg, 9 mg), folic acid (0.14 mg, 0.19 mg), and vitamin A (365 µg, 404 µg). Markers of inflammation were higher in malnourished than in well-nourished subjects. Compared with patients in lower quartiles, patients in the highest CRP quartile had lower intakes (p < 0.05) of sodium (241 mg vs 404 mg), calcium (453 mg vs 702 mg), vitamin B2 (0.88 mg vs 1.20 mg), and particularly vitamin A (207 µg vs 522 µg). CONCLUSIONS: Among PD patients, half had inadequate dietary intakes of iron, zinc, calcium and vitamins A, B6, C, niacin, and folic acid. Lower micronutrient intakes were associated with malnutrition and inflammation. Patients with inflammation had lower intakes of sodium, calcium, and vitamins A and B2. Micronutrient intake must be investigated in various populations so as to tailor adequate supplementation.

Conventional nutritional counselling maintains nutritional status of patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in spite of systemic inflammation and decrease of residual renal function.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of nutritional counselling on nutritional status in peritoneal dialysis patients. METHODS: Twenty-nine peritoneal dialysis patients were randomly selected to receive conventional nutritional counselling during 6 months of follow up. All patients had monthly clinical and biochemical evaluations, and assessments of dialysis adequacy, inflammation and nutritional status at 0, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Moderate-severe malnutrition decreased 28% whereas normal nutrition increased 23% at final evaluation (non-significant). Calorie and protein intake remained stable throughout the study (baseline vs final, calorie: 24 +/- 8 vs 23 +/- 5 Kcal/kg; protein: 1.1 +/- 0.5 vs 1.0 +/- 0.3 g/Kg, respectively). On the other hand, triceps (16 +/- 6 vs 18 +/- 8 mm) and subscapular (17 +/- 8 vs 20 +/- 5 mm) skinfold thicknesses, and mid-arm circumference (27 +/- 3 vs 28 +/- 3 mm) significantly increased; mid-arm muscle area displayed a non-significant trend to increase (30 +/- 9 vs 31 +/- 9 cm(2)) whereas serum albumin significantly increased at the end of study (2.67 +/- 0.46 vs 2.94 +/- 0.48 g/dL). At final evaluation, median renal creatinine clearance decreased (6.3 (0.8-15.3) vs 2.0 (0.1-6.3) L/week per 1.73 m(2)) whereas interleukin-6 increased (2.33 (1.9-7.0) vs 4.02 (2.1-8.4) pg/mL). CONCLUSION: Even though conventional nutritional counselling, as an isolated measure, did not significantly improve all nutritional parameters, it prevented a greater deterioration during 6 months. Nutritional counselling maintained the nutritional status in spite of a decrease in residual renal function and higher systemic inflammation.