Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-9
An opportunity for improved engagement and transparency: A systematic review of renal dialysis cost effectiveness and discrete choice experiment studies
Much attention is given to patient and provider engagement, cost, and quality. Nephrology is in a unique position to examine the intersection of these issues given kidney dialysis is delivered at a high cost to chronically ill patients. Annual dialysis treatments in Canada range from $56,000-$107,000 per patient dependent on modality. Economists quantify the preferred modality by calculating cost effectiveness through quality-adjusted life years or determining utilization through Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs). Cost-effectiveness studies identify peritoneal dialysis as the most economical, yet it is the least used. Discrete choice experiments address patient preferences but rarely include cost attributes. This presents a unique paradigm: cost studies do not include patient or physician perspectives, and DCEs do not consider cost. This systematic review of dialysis cost-effectiveness studies and DCEs identifies an opportunity to increase engagement and transparency by involving all care partners in assessing quality and cost.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FergusonTWTangriNRigattoCKomendaP. Cost-effective treatment modalities for reducing morbidity associated with chronic kidney disease. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(2):243–252.
2.
TernerMRedingNWuJ. Increasing rates of kidney failure in Canada strains demand for kidney donors. Healthc Q. 2016;19(3):10–12.
3.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Dialysis Modalities for the Treatment of End-Stage Kidney Disease. A Health Technology Assessment. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017.
4.
KlarenbachSTonelliMChuiBMannsBJ. Economic evaluation of dialysis therapies. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2014;10(11):644–652.
5.
US Renal Data System. USRDS 2013Annual Data Report: Atlas of End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health. 2014.
KerrMBrayBMedcalfJO’DonoghueDJMatthewsB. Estimating the financial cost of chronic kidney disease to the NHS in England. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(suppl 3):iii73–iii80.
8.
JohnsonMLZimmermanLWelchJLHertzogMPozehlBPlumbT. Patient activation with knowledge, self-management and confidence in chronic kidney disease. J Ren Care. 2016;42(1):15–22.
9.
TuotDSVelasquezAMcCullochCE, et al.The Kidney Awareness Registry and Education (KARE) study: protocol of a randomized controlled trial to enhance provider and patient engagement with chronic kidney disease. BMC Nephrol. 2015;16:166.
10.
BearRAStockieS. Patient engagement and patient-centred care in the management of advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic kidney failure. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2014,1:24–32.
11.
MolnarAOBaruaMKonvalinkaASchick MakaroffK. Patient engagement in kidney research: opportunities and challenges ahead. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2017;4:1–11.
HowardKSalkeldGWhiteS, et al.The cost-effectiveness of increasing kidney transplantation and home-based dialysis. Nephrology. 2009;14(1):123–132.
14.
HallerMGutjahrGKramarRHarnoncourtFOberbauerR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of renal replacement therapy in Austria. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(9):2988–2995.
15.
TreharneCLiuFXAriciMCroweLFarooquiU. Peritoneal dialysis and in-centre haemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(4):409–420.
16.
YangFLauTLuoN. Cost-effectiveness of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis for patients with end-stage renal disease in Singapore. Nephrology. 2016;21(8):669–677.
17.
ChangYTHwangJSHungSY, et al.Cost-effectiveness of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: a national cohort study with 14 years follow-up and matched for comorbidities and propensity score. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30266.
18.
PikeEHamidiVRingerikeTWisloffTKlempM. More use of peritoneal dialysis gives significant savings: a systematic review and health economic decision model. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(2):104–116.
19.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Dialysis Modalities for the Treatment of End-Stage Kidney Disease. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Recommendations; 2017.
20.
DrummondMFSculpherMJClaxtonKStoddardGLTorranceGW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press; 2015.
21.
RyanM. Discrete choice experiments in healthcare. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360–361.
22.
WalkerRCMortonRLPalmerSCMarshallMRTongAHowardK. A discrete choice study of patient preferences for dialysis modalities. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(1):100–108.
23.
FooteCMortonRLJardineM, et al.Considerations of nephrologists when suggesting dialysis in elderly patients with renal failure (CONSIDER): a discrete choice experiment. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29(12):2302–2309.
24.
MortonRLSnellingPWebsterAC, et al.Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(1):102–111.
25.
MortonRLSnellingPWebsterAC, et al.Factors influencing patient choice of dialysis versus conservative care to treat end-stage kidney disease. CMAJ. 2012;184(5):E277–283.
26.
ClarkMDSzczepuraAGumberAHowardKMoroDMortonRL. Measuring trade-offs in nephrology: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(2):348–355.
27.
ClarkMDHigginsRGumberA, et al.A better way to measure choices discrete choice experiment and conjoint analysis studies in nephrology: a literature review. EMJ Nephrol. 2013;1:52–59.
