High-dose hemodialysis versus conventional in-center hemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of high-dose hemodialysis (HD) versus conventional in-center HD (ICHD), over a lifetime time horizon from the UK payer's perspective. METHODS: We used a Markov modeling approach to compare high-dose HD (in-center or at home) with conventional ICHD using current and hypothetical home HD reimbursement tariffs in England. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Over a lifetime, high-dose HD in-center (5 sessions/wk) is associated with higher per-patient costs and QALYs (increases of £108,713 and 0.862, respectively) versus conventional ICHD. The corresponding ICER (£126,106/QALY) indicates that high-dose HD in-center is not cost-effective versus conventional ICHD at a UK willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000. High-dose HD at home is associated with lower total costs (£522 less per patient) and a per-patient QALY increase of 1.273 compared with ICHD under the current Payment-by Results reimbursement tariff (£456/wk). At an increased home HD tariff (£575/wk), the ICER for high-dose HD at home versus conventional ICHD is £17,404/QALY. High-dose HD at home had a 62% to 84% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Although high-dose HD has the potential to offer improved clinical and quality-of-life outcomes over conventional ICHD, under the current UK Payment-by Results reimbursement scheme, it would be considered cost-effective from a UK payer perspective only if conducted at home.

Cardiovascular remodeling during long-term nocturnal home hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with kidney failure. Nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHD) is a form of kidney replacement therapy whereby hemodialysis is performed for at least 6-h overnight, at least 4 days per week. Little is known about the effects of NHD on cardiovascular remodeling as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to determine the long-term effects of NHD on cardiovascular remodeling using different imaging modalities over a one-year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 11 patients were included in the study (6 males, mean age 48 ± 16 years) between 2009 and 2011 inclusive at a single tertiary care center. All patients underwent TTE and CMR at baseline and after 1 year of NHD. Left ventricular mass index decreased significantly at 1 year by both TTE (152 ± 7-129 ± 8 g/m(2), p < 0.05) and CMR (162 ± 4-124 ± 4 g/m(2), p < 0.05). There was also a significant decrease in both left and right atrial volume as well as in right ventricular mass index over 1 year of follow-up. Diastolic dysfunction, graded from 0 to 4, improved from a baseline grade of 3.4 to 1.2 at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term nocturnal hemodialysis leads to favorable cardiovascular remodeling with a reduction in cavity dimensions, regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, and an improvement in diastolic function, as assessed by both TTE and CMR.

Cost-Effectiveness of High Dose Hemodialysis in Comparison to Conventional In-Center Hemodialysis in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, the current standard of care for treating patients with end-stage renal disease is three sessions of in-center hemodialysis (conventional ICHD). However, the literature indicates that high dose hemodialysis (high dose HD) may provide better health outcome such as survival and quality of life. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of high dose HD, both in-center and at home, in comparison to conventional ICHD from a Dutch payer's perspective over a 5 year period. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of conventional HD at home in comparison to conventional ICHD will be analysed. METHODS: A Markov model was developed assuming 28-day treatment cycles and was populated with data from Dutch and international renal registries, official tariffs and medical literature. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Using publicly available tariffs from the Dutch Healthcare Authority (Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit) of 2015, doing high dose ICHD instead of conventional ICHD shows an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €275,747 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. In contrast, the ICER of high dose HD at home in comparison to conventional ICHD is €3248 per gained QALY. The final analysis shows that conventional HD at home is less costly per patient (-€3063) than conventional ICHD and results in health benefit improvement (+0.249 QALYs), and is therefore regarded as cost saving. CONCLUSION: Treating dialysis patients with conventional HD at home shows to be cost saving in comparison to conventional ICHD. However, the magnitude of clinical benefit of high dose HD at home is over two times greater than the clinical benefit of conventional HD at home. According to our analysis, from a payer's perspective, high dose HD should be offered as a home therapy to obtain its clinical benefits in a cost-effective manner. Future research should consider our findings alongside societal factors, such as patient preference, monitoring cost for the home patient, productivity loss and capacity. FUNDING: Baxter BV, The Netherlands.