The economics of daily dialysis

Novel Trends in Haemodialysis: Where Are We Heading?

The mortality and morbidity of end-stage renal failure patients undergoing conventional thrice weekly in-centre haemodialysis remain alarmingly high despite continuing advances in haemodialysis technologies and improvements in clinical care. Home haemodialysis continues to be under-utilised in many parts of the world despite the reported benefits. Alternative haemodialysis regimens including longer and/or more frequent dialysis (e.g. nocturnal haemodialysis and short daily haemodialysis), haemodiafiltration and the use of high flux dialysers have become more widespread in recent years as nephrologists struggle to improve the dismal survival figures. Whilst most of the encouraging data have come from observational studies, many randomised controlled trials which will provide more robust data are already underway. This review aims to provide a concise update of the recent and novel trends in haemodialysis. Key words: Haemodiafiltration, High flux dialysis, Home haemodialysis, Nocturnal haemodialysis, Short daily haemodialysis

Nocturnal hemodialysis in australia

BACKGROUND

Because home hemodialysis has long been a common Australian support modality, the advent of home-based nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) in Canada stimulated the extension of our existing home- and satellite-based conventional hemodialysis (CHD) programs to NHD. As a result, the first government-funded, home-based, 6-nights-per-week NHD program in Australia began in July 2001.

METHODS

Sixteen patients have been trained for NHD; 13 dialyzed at home 8 to 9 hr per night for 6 nights per week, whereas 3 preferred to train for NHD at home using an 8- to 9-hr alternate-night regime.

RESULTS

The program experience to March 1, 2003, was 655 patient-weeks. Two patients had withdrawn for transplantation and 2 for social reasons, although 1 continues on alternate-night NHD. There hade been no deaths. Ten patients had dialyzed without partners. All patients ceased phosphate binders at entry. Thirteen of 16 discontinued all antihypertensive drugs. There were no fluid or dietary restrictions. Phosphate was added to the dialysate to prevent hypophosphatemia. Pre- and postdialysis urea and phosphate levels were broadly within the normal ranges. All patients reported restorative sleep; similarly partners reported stable sleep patterns and noted improved mood, cognitive function, and marital relationships in their NHD partners. Preliminary cost analyses show that whereas consumables had doubled, and epoetin and iron expenditures had risen by 28.9%, other pharmaceutical costs had fallen by 47%, and nursing wage costs were 48% of the notional cost had these patients remained on CHD. Three patients on NHD were retired, 7 worked full-time, 3 worked part-time, and 3 drew disability support, whereas previously on CHD, 3 were retired, 3 had worked full-time, 3 had worked part-time, and 7 had drawn disability support.

CONCLUSION

We believe that NHD is viable, safe, effective, and well accepted with significant lifestyle benefits and reemployment outcomes. Although initial setup costs are significant, NHD cost advantage over CHD progressively accrues as program numbers exceed 12 to 15 patients.

Survival and hospitalization among patients using nocturnal and short daily compared to conventional hemodialysis: a USRDS study

We estimated the survival and hospitalization among frequent hemodialysis users in comparison to those patients undergoing thrice-weekly conventional hemodialysis. All patients had similar characteristics and medical histories. In this cohort study of frequent hemodialysis users and propensity score-matched controls, the collaborating clinicians identified 94 patients who used nocturnal hermodialysis (NHD) and 43 patients who used short-duration daily hemodialysis (SDHD) for a minimum of 60 days. Ten propensity score-matched control patients for each NHD and SDHD patient were identified from the United States Renal Data System database. Primary outcomes were risk for all-cause mortality and risk for the composite outcome of mortality or major morbid event (acute myocardial infarction or stroke) estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Risks for all-cause, cardiovascular-related, infection-related, and vascular access-related hospital admissions were also studied. Nocturnal hemodialysis was associated with significant reductions in mortality risk and risk for mortality or major morbid event when compared to conventional hemodialysis. There was a reduced but non-significant risk of death for patients using SDHD compared to controls. All-cause and specific hospitalizations did not differ significantly between NHD and SDHD patients and their matched control cohorts. Our study suggests that NHD may improve patient survival.

The economics of home dialysis: acting for the individual while planning responsibly for the population

Traditional medical education paradigms tend not to focus on health economics and economic evaluation. This has led to a culture in which bedside clinicians simply allocate health care resources made available to them, with often minimal input as to what these resources are at the population or health care system level. Life sustaining chronic dialysis therapies for end-stage renal disease are heterogeneous in terms of health care costs and the quality of life provided to patients receiving them. From the traditional clinician's perspective, they may be considered equivalent because there are no well-designed randomized control trials establishing the superiority of one particular dialysis modality in terms of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events. The intent of this review is to provide clinicians practicing in the area of chronic kidney disease some insights into the concepts of economic evaluation and how it may be integrated into clinical decision making at a programmatic level while not compromising individual patient care at the bedside. An epidemiologic perspective will be used to help frame how the implementation of home dialysis modalities vary depending on local health policies in place. Lessons learned by regional nephrology care systems may be readily transferable to other jurisdictions in augmenting the uptake of home dialysis modalities where they are dwindling or struggling to grow. A high-level understanding of economic data in this area may help influence health policy in the direction of the most efficient provision of dialysis to patients while not adversely affecting their quality of life or health outcomes.

The advantages and challenges of increasing the duration and frequency of maintenance dialysis sessions

The duration and frequency of hemodialysis was determined empirically when this therapy first came into use, and treatment was commonly three 8 h sessions per week by the end of the 1960s. Subsequently, however, the growing number of patients who required this therapy had to be reconciled with the shortage of equipment; therefore, dialysis time was decreased to three 4 h sessions per week. At the same time, on the basis of data from the first randomized controlled trial of dialysis -- the National Cooperative Dialysis Study -- Kt/V(urea) was devised as the optimum measure of dialysis adequacy. Nowadays, although Kt/V(urea) targets are fulfilled in an increasing number of patients, observational studies show that individuals on hemodialysis continue to experience a high rate of complications, including hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiac failure, hyperphosphatemia, malnutrition and death. Although no randomized controlled trial has yet been published, observational data indicate that increasing hemodialysis time and/or frequency improves a number of these complications, especially the death rate. This Review outlines the advantages of longer and/or more frequent dialysis sessions and highlights the barriers to adoption of such regimens, which largely relate to economics, patient willingness, and organization of dialysis units.

Daily dialysis: exploring the impact for patients and nurses

Daily haemodialysis is different to conventional haemodialysis in that the person receives at least five haemodialysis sessions per week. Increased haemodialysis sessions demonstrate an increased quality of life, decreased intradialytic complications and a decrease in comorbidities that are experienced by people receiving conventional haemodialysis. These improvements in health status are offset with substantial consequences on time management for patient and staff as well as the increased financial cost of supplies. This paper compares conventional haemodialysis with daily haemodialysis and examines the benefits and limitations of daily haemodialysis. We suggest that people who receive daily haemodialysis are able to achieve their fullest health potential with an increased quality of life, less comorbidity and less hospitalization.

Outcomes of a provincial home haemodialysis programme--a two-year experience: establishing benchmarks for programme evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The province of British Columbia has the only coordinated provincial programme for home-based haemodialysis (HHD) in Canada. The centrally coordinated and locally administered programme was initiated in 2002 as a pilot project, and was firmly established with secured funding in 2004. HHD programmes have reported successful outcomes with respect to patients' well-being, haemodynamic stability and improvement of clinical and biochemical parameters in small selected groups of patients.

METHODS

This report describes the 2-year outcomes of a provincial programme, in which more liberal criteria for patient selection have been applied, and multiple sites have trained and managed the patients over a large geographic area. As a 'newer' modality, it is important to review outcomes objectively so as to determine the true value of this home-based programme as an alternative to other home-based therapies such as peritoneal dialysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and five patients who completed training and commenced home therapy between April 2004 and March 2006 were followed, for a total of 163.23 patient-years (PY). The average age was 52; 71% were male and the majority (58%) were Caucasian. Mean biochemical and clinical parameters were all within provincial and national target ranges at baseline and at the time of study follow-up cessation. Overall, 34 individual patients required hospital admission and 95% of the cohort required at least one in-centre run after training was completed (0.5 hospital admissions and 11 in-centre run per PY of HHD delivered). One- and 2-year technique survivals were 81% and 61% respectively, which were 85% and 74% when censored for transplantation. We were unable to demonstrate any significant predictors of technique survival using demographic, biochemical or other variables.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of HHD programme technique survival in a large provincial cohort. The 2-year technique survival of this cohort is comparable to reports of technique survival in peritoneal dialysis. These data can be used to benchmark programmes, and to foster further research to determine factors that may improve HHD technique survival.

The impact of home nocturnal hemodialysis on end-stage renal disease therapies: a decision analysis

Home nocturnal hemodialysis (HNHD) is cost-effective relative to in-center hemodialysis (IHD) in short-run analyses. The effect in long-run analyses, when technique failures, declining benefits, delayed training, transplantation and death are considered, is unknown. We used decision analysis techniques to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of HNHD and IHD, projecting future costs and health effects over a lifetime with end-stage renal disease. We developed a Markov state-transition model comparing two strategies: only IHD or starting on IHD and subsequently transferring to HNHD. The model incorporates transplantation. In the base case, half the population was eligible for transplantation, with (1/3) of grafts from live donors. The time to transplant was 0.75 years for live and 5 years for deceased donor transplants. The delay before initiation of HNHD was 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Model parameters were derived from a literature review. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations. The HNHD strategy was associated with a quality-adjusted survival estimate of 5.79 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with lifetime costs of $538 094. The values for IHD were 5.31 QALYs and $543 602, respectively. Thus, HNHD is cost saving while improving quality of life. The incremental cost-utility ratio was consistently less than $50 000 per QALY in sensitivity and Monte Carlo analyses. Important determinants of cost-effectiveness were transplantation time and whether benefits declined over time. Our model suggests that HNHD improves quality-adjusted survival over IHD at an economically attractive cost-effectiveness ratio.

The political contexts of evidence-based medicine: policymaking for daily hemodialysis

Policymakers and clinicians increasingly rely on evidence-based medicine (EBM) to make decisions about insurance coverage and clinical treatment. Conflicting value judgments about evidence and pressures exerted by stakeholders render health policymaking a political process. This paper examines how value judgments become embedded in the process of improving medical outcomes by focusing on health policymaking. Specifically, this paper highlights how EBM is variably used as a standard for decision-making depending on perceived risks by policymakers and what is on the competing agenda. I draw upon the case study of the policymaking process for the recent US bill, H.R. 1004: Kidney Patient Daily Dialysis Act, which would legislate daily hemodialysis (DHD) as a new renal replacement therapy modality, and provide federal medicare funding of hemodialysis from 3 to 6 times per week. DHD constitutes an ideal case study with which to explore the political underpinnings of EBM. The interpretations of substantial outcome data showing medical, quality of life, and hypothetical economic improvements of DHD over conventional dialysis are currently being contested in the medical and political spheres. Accordingly, the drive for what some stakeholders view as better evidence through randomized clinical trials is central to the debate and policymaking process. This paper underscores how the demand for, the interpretations, the funding for, and the use of evidence render EBM a political endeavor with vital ethical implications for clinical care.

Daily Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review

Several studies have reported improved outcomes with daily hemodialysis (DHD), but the strength of this evidence has not been evaluated. The published evidence on DHD was synthesized and its quality rated to inform need and sample size calculations for a randomized trial. Citations were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE using validated search strategies. Dialysis journals that were not indexed and bibliographies of relevant articles were hand-searched. Two authors reviewed all citations. Articles that reported original data on five or more adults who were receiving DHD (1.5 to 3 h, 5 to 7 d/wk) for > or = 3 mo were included. Twenty-five articles reporting 14 unique populations with 268 patients (five to 72 per study) met inclusion criteria. Of the 14 cohorts, 13 were studied with an observational design, 10 were studied prospectively, and four had parallel control groups. Mean age ranged form 41 to 64 yr, mean time on dialysis was 2 to 11 yr, 0 to 28% of patients had diabetes, > 90% had arteriovenous fistulae, and > 50% were dialyzed at home. Most data were described at < or = 12 mo of follow-up. Outcomes included quality of life, cardiovascular disease, erythropoiesis, nutritional status, hospitalizations, and vascular access failures. Reporting was too heterogeneous to allow pooling of data. Ten of 11 studies suggested improvements in blood pressure; findings for other outcomes varied. Discontinuation of DHD occurred in 0 to 57% in-center and 0 to 15% home patients. Studies of DHD are limited by small sample size, nonideal control groups, selection and dropout biases, and paucity of data on potential risks. Randomized trials with adequate statistical power are required to establish the efficacy and the safety of DHD.

A systematic review of the effect of nocturnal hemodialysis on blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, anemia, mineral metabolism, and health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Nocturnal hemodialysis is a novel form of dialysis where patients perform dialysis 6 nights per week while they sleep. Multiple publications report significant improvements in selected clinical outcomes, although the strength of these results is limited by shortcomings in study design. A systematic review of the current available literature was undertaken to examine the effect of nocturnal hemodialysis on key health outcomes.

METHODS

An inclusive search of medical databases was undertaken to identify all nocturnal hemodialysis studies. These results were manually reviewed for relevance to nocturnal hemodialysis and its impact on the following predefined health outcomes: blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, anemia, mineral metabolism, and health related quality of life. Case reports, short-term studies (<4 weeks), studies without comparator groups, and studies not reporting data in a quantitative fashion were excluded. The results of the remaining studies were reported in tabular format.

RESULTS

Of the initial 270 studies identified, only 14 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. No studies examining the impact of nocturnal hemodialysis on mortality were identified. All studies reported improved blood pressure control after conversion to nocturnal hemodialysis. Data regarding the other health outcomes of interest revealed mixed results.

CONCLUSION

Nocturnal hemodialysis is a potential alternative to conventional intermittent hemodialysis. Before significant resources are invested in initiating nocturnal hemodialysis programs, further data on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, preferably from randomized clinical trials, are required.

Out of touch or on the money: Do the clinical objectives of addiction treatment coincide with economic evaluation results?

Previous economic studies have examined the association between substance abuse treatment and reduced costs to society, but it remains uncertain whether the economic measures used in cost and benefit-cost analyses of treatment programs correspond in direction and magnitude with clinical outcomes. In response to this uncertainty, the present study analyzed a longitudinal data set of addiction treatment clients to determine the statistical agreement between clinical and economic outcomes over time. Data were collected from 1,326 clients in the Chicago cohort of the Persistent Effects of Treatment Study. These individuals were interviewed at baseline as well as at 6-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month followup periods (91.6% followup). Correlations between clinical and economic measures were generally small (rho of 0.1 to 0.3) and often became non-significant once we controlled for baseline severity. The results demonstrate that although some associations exist, outcomes should be evaluated along both clinical and economic dimensions.

Dialysis dose and frequency

BACKGROUND

From the beginning of the dialysis era, the issue of optimal dialysis dose and frequency has been a central topic in the delivery of dialysis treatment.

METHODS

We undertook a discussion to achieve a consensus on key points relating to dialysis dose and frequency, focusing on the relationships with clinical and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Traditionally, dialysis adequacy has been quantified referring to the kinetics of urea, taken as a paradigm of all uraemic toxins, and applying the principles of pharmacokinetics using either single- or double-pool variable volume models. An index of dialysis dose is the fractional clearance of urea, which is commonly expressed as Kt/V. It can be calculated from blood urea concentration and haemodialysis (HD) parameters, according to the respective urea kinetic model or by means of simplified formulas. Similar principles are applicable to peritoneal dialysis (PD), where weekly Kt/V and creatinine clearance are used. Recommended minimal targets for dialysis adequacy have been defined by both American and European guidelines (DOQI and European Best Practice Guidelines, respectively). The question of how to improve the severe outcome of dialysis patients has recently come back to the fore, since the results of two recent randomized controlled trials led to the conclusion that, in thrice weekly HD and in PD, increasing the dialysis dose well above the minimum requirements of current American guidelines did not improve patient outcome. Daily HD (defined as a minimum of six HD sessions per week), in the form of either short daytime HD or long slow nocturnal HD, is regarded as a possibility to improve dialysis patient outcome. The results of the studies published so far indicate excellent results with respect to all outcomes analysed: optimal blood pressure control, regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and amelioration of left ventricular performance, improvement of renal anaemia, optimal hyperphosphataemia control, improvement of nutritional status, reduction in oxidative stress indices and improvement in quality of life. The basis for these beneficial effects is thought to be a more physiological clearance of solutes and water, with reduced pre- and post-HD solute concentrations and interdialytic oscillation, compared with traditional HD. Apart from concerns regarding reimbursement and organizational issues, no serious adverse effects have been described with daily HD. However, the evidence accumulated is limited mainly to retrospective cohorts, with small patient numbers and no adequate controls in most instances. Therefore, large prospective studies with adequate controls are required to make daily HD accepted by reimbursing authorities and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the available observational and interventional body of evidence, there is no reason to reduce arbitrarily dialysis dose, particularly dialysis treatment time in HD patients treated three times weekly. Daily HD represents a very promising tool for improving dialysis outcomes and quality of life, although its impact on patient survival has not yet been proven definitively.

Willingness of patients to switch from conventional to daily hemodialysis: looking before we leap

PURPOSE

To evaluate the willingness of patients with end-stage renal disease to switch from conventional hemodialysis to short daily hemodialysis, and to determine what health benefits clinical trials of daily hemodialysis would have to document for patients to switch regimens.

METHODS

We studied all patients receiving conventional hemodialysis (defined as three times per week) at three dialysis centers in Philadelphia during a 4-month period. Patients indicated their willingness to switch to daily hemodialysis (defined as six 2- to 3-hour in-center treatments per week) in each of 21 scenarios presented via an interactive computer display. We used conjoint analysis to determine how patients' decisions were influenced by four attributes of daily hemodialysis: predicted life expectancy, quality of life, number of annual hospitalizations, and weekly transportation time to and from the dialysis center.

RESULTS

Of 126 patients interviewed, 55 (44%) would not choose daily hemodialysis regardless of its health benefits. The remaining 71 patients (56%) indicated that they would consider switching if daily hemodialysis was shown to yield certain health benefits. Patients were more willing to switch to daily hemodialysis as the associated life expectancy and average quality of life increased, and as the number of annual hospitalizations and weekly transportation time decreased (all P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although daily hemodialysis has received broad support from nephrologists, funding agencies, and lawmakers as the emerging standard of care for patients with end-stage renal disease, upcoming clinical trials would have to document substantial health benefits in order for patients to switch to daily hemodialysis, and many patients may still decline this regimen regardless of the documented benefits.

Willingness of dialysis patients to participate in a randomized controlled trial of daily dialysis

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed conducting randomized controlled trials comparing short, daily, in-center hemodialysis with conventional hemodialysis. However, there is concern that difficulties recruiting patients may prevent the successful completion of such trials if patients believe the inconveniences of daily dialysis outweigh any potential health benefits.

METHODS

To gauge willingness to participate in a daily dialysis trial, we described a hypothetical, randomized controlled trial comparing conventional to daily hemodialysis to 209 chronic hemodialysis patients, and assessed their motivations for and concerns about participating.

RESULTS

We found that 85 patients (41%) of 209 patients who agreed to be interviewed expressed some willingness to participate in the hypothetical trial. Patients who expressed greater willingness to participate were younger (OR for participating = 0.96 per year, 95% CI = 0.94 to 0.98, P= 0.001), less likely to smoke (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.84, P= 0.017), more likely to have been hospitalized during the last 12 months (OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.5 to 5.5, P= 0.002), less likely to have reactive airway disease (OR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.69, P= 0.01) or coronary artery disease (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.53, P= 0.001), and less likely to be on the waiting list for a kidney transplant (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.50, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that less than half of eligible patients would be willing to participate in the randomized controlled trial. Differing willingness to participate across patient subgroups suggests that certain subgroups (i.e., older patients and those with coronary artery disease) will need to be targeted to ensure that results are generalizable to most hemodialysis patients.

An operating cost comparison between conventional and home quotidian hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have shown that simulated annual direct health care costs are substantially lower for patients undergoing more frequent hemodialysis (HD), there is limited information about the economics of daily HD and nocturnal HD.

METHODS

The London Daily/Nocturnal Hemodialysis Study compared the economics of short daily HD (n = 10), long nocturnal HD (n = 12), and conventional thrice-weekly HD (n = 22) in patients over 18 months. A retrospective analysis of patients' conventional HD costs during the 12 months before study entry was conducted to measure the change in cost after switching to quotidian HD.

RESULTS

As the data show, annual costs (in Canadian dollars) for daily HD are substantially lower than for both nocturnal HD and conventional HD: approximately 67,300 Can dollars, 74,400 Can dollars, and 72,700 Can dollars per patient, respectively. Moreover, marginal changes in operating cost per patient year were - 9,800 Can dollars, -17,400 Can dollars, and +3,100 Can dollars for the daily HD, nocturnal HD, and conventional HD groups. Because of the increase in number of treatments, treatment supply costs per patient for the daily HD and nocturnal HD study groups were approximately twice those for conventional HD patients. However, average costs for consults, hospitalization days, emergency room visits, and laboratory tests for quotidian HD patients tended to decline after study entry. The major cost saving in home quotidian HD derived from the reduction in direct nursing time, excluding patient training. Total annualized cost per quality-adjusted life-year for the daily HD and nocturnal HD groups were 85,442 Can dollars and 120,903 Can dollars, which represented a marginal change of - 15,090 Can dollars and - 21,651 Can dollars, respectively, reflecting both improved quality of life and reduced costs for quotidian HD patients.

CONCLUSION

Substantial clinical benefits of home quotidian HD, combined with the economic advantage shown by this study, clearly justify its expansion.

Daily hemodialysis: an update

The interest in daily hemodialysis in the form of short daily hemodialysis and nocturnal hemodialysis has continued to increase over the past few years. A significant number of publications support the evidence for improved outcomes in most of the study areas, including financial benefits. The increased direct cost of the provision of daily hemodialysis seems to be the main obstacle to the wider acceptance of these methods. Convincing data of improved outcomes and evidence of cost efficiency of daily hemodialysis are being generated. These data may increase the interest of the institutional payors as well as of the dialysis industry to create the proper infrastructure for the use of daily hemodialysis. These dialysis regimens promise to have a major impact on the management of end-stage renal disease.