Challenging Assumptions of Outcomes and Costs Comparing Peritoneal and Hemodialysis

The effect of dialysis modality on annual mortality: A prospective cohort study

Despite numerous studies on the effect of each dialysis modality on mortality, the issue remains controversial. We investigated the hazard rate of mortality in patients with incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) concerning initial dialysis modality (hemodialysis vs. peritoneal dialysis). Using a nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort in South Korea, we studied 2207 patients, of which 1647 (74.6%) underwent hemodialysis. We employed the weighted Fine and Gray model over the follow-up period using inverse probability of treatment and censoring weighting. Landmark analysis was used for identifying the changing effect of dialysis modality on individuals who remained event-free at each landmark point. No significant difference in hazard rate was observed overall. However, the peritoneal dialysis group had a significantly higher hazard rate than the hemodialysis group among patients under 65 years after 4- and 5- year follow-up. A similar pattern was observed among those with diabetes mellitus. Landmark analysis also showed the higher hazard rate for peritoneal dialysis at 2 years for the education-others group and at 3 years for the married group. These findings may inform dialysis modality decisions, suggesting a preference for hemodialysis in young patients with diabetes, especially for follow-ups longer than 3 years.

Exploring kidney dialysis costs in the United States: a scoping review

AIMS

The increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States (US) represents a considerable economic burden due to the high cost of dialysis treatment. This review examines data from real-world studies to identify cost drivers and explore areas where dialysis costs could be reduced.

METHODS

We identified and synthesized evidence published from 2016-2023 reporting direct dialysis costs in adult US patients from a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature sources (e.g. US Renal Data System reports).

RESULTS

Most identified data related to Medicare expenditures. Overall Medicare spending in 2020 was $29B for hemodialysis and $2.8B for peritoneal dialysis (PD). Dialysis costs accounted for almost 80% of total Medicare expenditures on ESRD beneficiaries. Private insurance payers consistently pay more for dialysis; for example, per person per month spending by private insurers on outpatient dialysis was estimated at $10,149 compared with Medicare spending of $3,364. Dialysis costs were higher in specific high-risk patient groups (e.g. type 2 diabetes, hepatitis C). Spending on hemodialysis was higher than on PD, but the gap in spending between PD and hemodialysis is closing. Vascular access costs accounted for a substantial proportion of dialysis costs.

LIMITATIONS

Insufficient detail in the identified studies, especially related to outpatient costs, limits opportunities to identify key drivers. Differences between the studies in methods of measuring dialysis costs make generalization of these results difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that prevention of or delay in progression to ESRD could have considerable cost savings for Medicare and private payers, particularly in patients with high-risk conditions such as type 2 diabetes. More efficient use of resources is needed, including low-cost medication, to improve clinical outcomes and lower overall costs, especially in high-risk groups. Widening access to PD where it is safe and appropriate may help to reduce dialysis costs.

System-Level Strategies to Improve Home Dialysis: Policy Levers and Quality Initiatives

Advocacy and policy change are powerful levers to improve quality of care and better support patients on home dialysis. While the kidney community increasingly recognizes the value of home dialysis as an option for patients who prioritize independence and flexibility, only a minority of patients dialyze at home in the United States. Complex system-level factors have restricted further growth in home dialysis modalities, including limited infrastructure, insufficient staff for patient education and training, patient-specific barriers, and suboptimal physician expertise. In this article, we outline trends in home dialysis use, review our evolving understanding of what constitutes high-quality care for the home dialysis population (as well as how this can be measured), and discuss policy and advocacy efforts that continue to shape the care of US patients and compare them with experiences in other countries. We conclude by discussing future directions for quality and advocacy efforts.

Hemodialysis Versus Peritoneal Dialysis Drug Expenditures: A Comparison Within the Private Insurance Market

Rationale and Objective

Recent initiatives aim to improve patient satisfaction and autonomy by increasing the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the United States. However, limited knowledge is available about the costs of different dialysis modalities, particularly those incurred by private insurers. In this study, we compared the costs of injectable dialysis drugs (and their oral equivalents) paid by insurers between privately insured patients receiving hemodialysis and PD.

Study Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Setting and Participants

From a private insurance claims database, we identified patients who started receiving PD or in-center hemodialysis between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020.

Exposure

Patients started receiving PD.

Outcomes

Average annual injectable drug and aggregate expenditures and expenditure subcategories.

Analytical Approach

Patients who started receiving PD were propensity matched to similar patients who started receiving hemodialysis based on the year of dialysis initiation, patient demographics, health, geography, and comorbidities. Cost ratios (CRs) were estimated from generalized linear models.

Results

We matched 284 privately insured patients who started receiving PD 1:1 with patients started receiving in-center hemodialysis. The average annual injectable drug expenditures for hemodialysis were 2-fold higher (CR: 1.99; 95% CI, 1.62-2.44) than that for PD. Compared those receiving PD, patients receiving hemodialysis incurred significantly lower nondrug dialysis-related expenditures (0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.94). The average annual expenditures for non-dialysis-dependent outpatient services were significantly higher among patients who underwent in-center hemodialysis (CR: 1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.90). Although aggregate and inpatient hospitalization expenditures were higher for in-center hemodialysis, these differences did not reach statistical significance.

Limitations

Small sample sizes may have restricted our ability to identify differences in some cost categories.

Conclusions

Compared with privately insured patients who started receiving PD, patients starting in-center hemodialysis incurred higher expenditures for injectable dialysis drugs, whereas differences in other expenditure categories varied. Recent increases in the use of PD may lead to reductions in injectable dialysis drug costs among privately insured patients.

Plain Language Summary

Recent initiatives aim to improve patient satisfaction and autonomy by increasing the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the United States. However, limited knowledge is available about the costs of different dialysis modalities, particularly those incurred by private insurers. In this study, we compared the costs of injectable dialysis drugs (and their oral equivalents) provided by insurers between privately insured patients receiving hemodialysis and PD. We found that the average annual injectable drug expenditures for hemodialysis were 2.0-fold higher compared with those for PD. These findings suggest that the recent increase in the use of PD may lead to reductions in injectable dialysis drug costs among privately insured patients.

A Comparison of US Medicare Expenditures for Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis

BACKGROUND

Observations that peritoneal dialysis (PD) may be an effective, lower-cost alternative to hemodialysis for the treatment of ESKD have led to policies encouraging PD and subsequent increases in its use in the United States.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare beneficiaries who started dialysis between 2008 and 2015, we ascertained average annual expenditures (for up to 3 years after initiation of dialysis) for patients ≥67 years receiving in-center hemodialysis or PD. We also determined whether differences in Medicare expenditures across dialysis modalities persisted as more patients were placed on PD. We used propensity scores to match 8305 patients initiating PD with 8305 similar patients initiating hemodialysis.

RESULTS

Overall average expenditures were US$108,656 (2017) for hemodialysis and US$91,716 for PD (proportionate difference, 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.13). This difference did not change over time (P for time interaction term=0.14). Hemodialysis had higher estimated intravenous (iv) dialysis drug costs (1.69; 95% CI, 1.64 to 1.73), rehabilitation expenditures (1.35; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.45), and other nondialysis expenditures (1.34; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.37). Over time, initial differences in total dialysis expenditures disappeared and differences in iv dialysis drug utilization narrowed as nondialysis expenditures diverged. Estimated iv drug costs declined by US$2900 per patient-year in hemodialysis between 2008 and 2014 versus US$900 per patient-year in PD.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the Medicare program, savings associated with PD in patients ≥67 years have remained unchanged, despite rapid growth in the use of this dialysis modality. Total dialysis expenditures for the two modalities converged over time, whereas nondialysis expenditures diverged.

Cost Barriers to More Widespread Use of Peritoneal Dialysis in the United States

The United States Department of Health and Human Services launched the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative in 2019, which included a goal of transforming dialysis care from an in-center to a largely home-based dialysis program. A substantial motivator for this transition is the potential to reduce costs of ESKD care with peritoneal dialysis. Studies demonstrating that peritoneal dialysis is less costly than in-center hemodialysis have often focused on the perspective of the payer, whereas less consideration has been given to the costs of those who are more directly involved in treatment decision making, including patients, caregivers, physicians, and dialysis facilities. We review comparisons of peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis costs, focusing on costs incurred by the people and organizations making decisions about dialysis modality, to highlight the financial barriers toward increased adoption of peritoneal dialysis. We specifically address misaligned economic incentives, underappreciated costs for key stakeholders involved in peritoneal dialysis delivery, differences in provider costs, and transition costs. We conclude by offering policy suggestions that include improving data collection to better understand costs in peritoneal dialysis, and sharing potential savings among all stakeholders, to incentivize a transition to peritoneal dialysis.

Peritoneal Dialysis for Potential Kidney Transplant Recipients: Pride or Prejudice?

Kidney transplantation (KT) is recognized as the gold-standard of treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that receiving a pre-emptive KT ensures the best recipient and graft survivals. However, due to an overwhelming discrepancy between the organs available and the patients on the transplant waiting list, the vast majority of transplant candidates require prolonged periods of dialysis before being transplanted. For many years, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have been considered competitive renal replacement therapies (RRT). This dualistic vision has recently been questioned by evidence suggesting that an individualized and flexible approach may be more appropriate. In fact, tailored and cleverly planned changes between different RRT modalities, according to the patient's needs and characteristics, are often needed in order to achieve the best results. While home HD is still under scrutiny in this particular setting, current data seems to favor the use of PD over in-center HD in patients awaiting a KT. In this specific population, the demonstrated advantages of PD are superior quality of life, longer preservation of residual renal function, lower incidence of delayed graft function, better recipient survival, and reduced cost.