Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:48:51.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic evaluation of continuous renal replacement therapy in acute renal failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Scott Klarenbach ,
Braden Manns ,
Neesh Pannu ,
Fiona M. Clement ,
Natasha Wiebe  and
Marcello Tonelli
Scott Klarenbach
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Braden Manns
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Neesh Pannu
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Fiona M. Clement
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Natasha Wiebe
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Marcello Tonelli
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Controversy exists regarding the optimal method of providing dialysis in critically ill patients with acute renal failure. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies.

Methods: Adult subjects requiring renal replacement therapy in a critical care setting who are candidates for intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) were considered within a Markov model. Alternative strategies including IHD, and standard or high dose CRRT were compared. The model considered relevant clinical and economic outcomes, and incorporated data on clinical effectiveness from a recent systematic review and high quality micro-costing data.

Results: In the base-case analysis, CRRT was associated with similar health outcomes but higher costs by ($3,679 more than IHD per patient). In scenarios considering alternate cost sources, and higher intensity of IHD (including daily and longer duration IHD), CRRT remained more costly. Sensitivity analysis indicated that even small differences in the risk of mortality or need for long-term chronic dialysis therapy among surviving patients benefits led to dramatic changes in the cost-effectiveness of the modalities considered.

Conclusions: Given the higher costs of providing CRRT and absence of demonstrated benefit, IHD is the preferred modality in critically ill patients who are candidates for either IHD or CRRT, although this conclusion should be revisited if future clinical trials establish differences in clinical effectiveness between modalities. Future interventions that are proven to improve renal recovery after acute renal failure are likely to be cost-effective, even if very resource intensive.

Keywords

Costs and cost analysisKidney failure-acuteKidney failure-chronicRenal replacement therapyDecision support techniques
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 331 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bagshaw, SM, Berthiaume, LR, Delaney, A, Bellomo, R. Continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: A meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:610–617.Google Scholar
2. Bagshaw, SM, Laupland, KB, Doig, CJ, et al. Prognosis for long-term survival and renal recovery in critically ill patients with severe acute renal failure: A population-based study. Crit Care. 2005;9:R700–R709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Berbece, AN, Richardson, RM. Sustained low-efficiency dialysis in the ICU: Cost, anticoagulation, and solute removal. Kidney Int. 2006;70:963–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Briggs, AH, Goeree, R, Blackhouse, G, O'Brien, BJ. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: Choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:290–308.Google Scholar
5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006.Google Scholar
6. Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, McCabe, C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for nice technology assessment: Not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14:339–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Drummond, MF, Jefferson, TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313:275–283.Google Scholar
8. Hamel, MB, Phillips, RS, Davis, RB, et al. Outcomes and cost-effectiveness of initiating dialysis and continuing aggressive care in seriously ill hospitalized adults. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:195–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Laupacis, A, Keown, P, Plus, N, et al. A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int. 1996;50:235–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Lee, H, Manns, B, Taub, K, et al. Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: The impact of dialysis modality and dialysis access. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;40:611–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Manns, B, Johnson, JA, Taub, K, Mortis, G, Ghali, WA, Donaldson, C. Quality of life in patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis: What are the important determinants? Clin Nephrol. 2003;60:341–351.Google Scholar
12. Manns, B, Doig, CJ, Lee, H, et al. Cost of acute renal failure requiring dialysis in the intensive care unit: Clinical and resource implications of renal recovery. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:449–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. McCabe, C, Dixon, S. Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:501–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Mehta, RL, Chertow, GM. In critically ill patients with acute renal failure, outcomes, not dollars, should drive modality choice. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:644–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Mehta, RL, McDonald, B, Gabbai, FB, et al. A randomized clinical trial of continuous versus intermittent dialysis for acute renal failure. Kidney Int. 2001;60:1154–1163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Noseworthy, TW, Konopad, E, Shustack, A, Johnston, R, Grace, M. Cost accounting of adult intensive care: Methods and human and capital inputs. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1168–1172.Google Scholar
17. Palevsky, PM, Zhang, JH, O'Connor, TZ, et al. Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:7–20.Google Scholar
18. Pannu, N, Klarenbach, S, Wiebe, N, et al. Renal replacement therapy in patients with acute renal failure: A systematic review. JAMA. 2008;299:793–805.Google Scholar
19. Vinsonneau, C, Camus, C, Combes, A, et al. Continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration versus intermittent haemodialysis for acute renal failure in patients with multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome: A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2006;368:379–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Vitale, C, Bagnis, C, Marangella, M, et al. Cost analysis of blood purification in intensive care units: continuous versus intermittent hemodiafiltration. J Nephrol. 2003;16:572–579.Google ScholarPubMed
21. Weinstein, MC, O'Brien, B, Hornberger, J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices–Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed