Home / FlashMed


Titolo Economic Evaluation of Frequent Home Nocturnal Hemodialysis Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial
Autore Scott Klarenbach, Marcello Tonelli, Robert Pauly, Michael Walsh, Bruce Culleton, Helen So, Brenda Hemmelgarn, and Braden Manns
Referenza J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; doi: 10.1681/ASN.2013040360

Provider and patient enthusiasm for frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis (FHNHD) has been renewed; however, the cost-effectiveness of this technique is unknown. We performed a cost-utility analysis of FHNHD compared with conventional hemodialysis (CvHD; 4 hours three times per week) from a health payer perspective over a lifetime horizon using patient information from the Alberta NHD randomized controlled trial. Costs, including training costs, were obtained using microcosting and administrative data (CAN$2012). We determined the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Robustness was assessed using scenario, sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with CvHD (61% in-center, 14% satellite, and 25% home dialysis), FHNHD led to incremental cost savings (2$6700) and an additional 0.38 QALYs. In sensitivity analyses, when the annual probability of technique failure with FHNHD increased from 7.6% (reference case) to $19%, FHNHD became unattractive (.$75,000/QALY). The cost/QALY gained became $13,000 if average training time for FHNHD increased from 3.7 to 6 weeks. In scenarios with alternate comparator modalities, FHNHD remained dominant compared with in-center CvHD; cost/QALYs gained were $18,500, $198,000, and $423,000 compared with satellite CvHD, home CvHD, and peritoneal dialysis, respectively. In summary, FHNHD is attractive compared with in-center CvHD in this cohort. However, the attractiveness ofFHNHDvaries by technique failure rate, training time, and dialysis modalities from which patients are drawn, and these variables should be considered when establishing FHNHD programs.

Data 23.06.2014
Maggiori informazioni   
Lista completa