Cost-effectiveness analysis of online hemodiafiltration versus high-flux hemodialysis

Hemodiafiltration: a synergy yet to be convincing

The desperate attempt to improve mortality, morbidity, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in patients on hemodialysis has led to multiple attempts to improve the different modes, frequencies, and durations of dialysis sessions in the last few decades. Nothing has been more appealing than the combination of diffusion and convection in the form of hemodiafiltration. Despite the concrete evidence of better clearance of middle weight molecules and better hemodynamic stability, tangible evidence to support the universal adoption is still at a distance. Survival benefits seen in selected groups who are likely to tolerate hemodiafiltration with better vascular access and with lower comorbid burden, need to be extended to real life dialysis patients who are older than the population studied and have significantly higher comorbid burden. Technical demands of initiation hemodiafiltration, the associated costs, and the incremental benefits targeted, along with patient-reported outcomes, need to be explored further before recommending hemodiafiltration as the mode of choice.

High volume online hemodiafiltration: a global perspective and the Brazilian experience

Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) is a rapidly growing dialysis modality worldwide. In Brazil, the number of patients with private health insurance undergoing HDF has exceeded the number of patients on peritoneal dialysis. The achievement of a high convection volume was associated with better clinical imprand patient - reported outcomes confirming the benefits of HDF. The HDFit trial provided relevant practical information on the implementation of online HDF in dialysis centers in Brazil. This article aims to disseminate technical information to improve the quality and safety of this new dialysis modality.

Is hemodiafiltration superior to high-flow hemodialysis in reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in kidney failure patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) and high-flux hemodialysis (hf-HD) are different methods of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) used for the treatment of kidney failure patients. A debate has raged over the last decade about the survival benefit of patients with the use of HDF compared with hf-HD, but with divergent results from randomized controlled trials. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare HDF and hf-HD regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched until July 19, 2023, for randomized clinical trials comparing HDF and hf-HD in patients on maintenance dialysis. A meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.1, applying fixed or random effect models according to the heterogeneity between studies.

FINDINGS

Of the 496 studies found, five met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the hf-HD group, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with HDF use was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67-0.88, I2 = 0%). HDF was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, although the sensitivity analysis showed that the result differed between scenarios. Subgroup analysis showed lower all-cause mortality among patients without diabetes in the HDF group compared with hf-HD (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81, I2 = 0%), but not in diabetic patients (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.12, I2 = 0.0%). A subgroup analysis considering convection volumes was not performed, but the studies with the highest weight in the meta-analysis described convection volume as more than 20 L/session.

DISCUSSION

More clinical studies considering critical risk factors, such as advanced age and preexisting cardiovascular disease, are needed to confirm the supremacy of HDF over hf-HD on the survival of patients treated by these two forms of kidney replacement therapy.

Controversy on the CONVINCE study findings: the PRO take

The CONVINCE study, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reveals a groundbreaking 23% reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality among end-stage kidney patients undergoing high convective volume hemodiafiltration. This significant finding challenges the conventional use of high-flux hemodialysis and offers hope for improving outcomes in chronic kidney disease patients. While some controversies surround the study's findings, including concerns about generalizability and the causes of death, it is essential to acknowledge the study's design and its main outcomes. The CONVINCE study, part of the HORIZON 2020 project, enrolled 1360 patients and demonstrated the superiority of hemodiafiltration in reducing all-cause mortality overall, as well as in specific patient subgroups (elderly, short vintage, non-diabetic, and those without cardiac issues). Interestingly, it was shown that hemodiafiltration had a protective effect against infection, including COVID-19. Future research will address sustainability, dose scaling effects, identification of subgroups especially likely to benefit and cost-effectiveness. However, for now, the findings strongly support a broader adoption of hemodiafiltration in renal replacement therapy, marking a significant advancement in the field.

Personalizing treatment in end-stage kidney disease: deciding between hemodiafiltration and hemodialysis based on individualized treatment effect prediction

Background

Previous studies suggest that hemodiafiltration reduces mortality compared to hemodialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), but controversy surrounding its benefits remain and it is unclear to what extent individual patients benefit from hemodiafiltration. This study aimed to develop and validate a treatment effect prediction model to determine which patients would benefit most from hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis in terms of all-cause mortality.

Methods

Individual participant data from four randomized controlled trials comparing hemodiafiltration with hemodialysis on mortality were used to derive a Royston-Parmar model for prediction of absolute treatment effect of hemodiafiltration based on pre-specified patient and disease characteristics. Validation of the model was performed using internal-external cross validation.

Results

The median predicted survival benefit was 44 (Q1-Q3: 44–46) days for every year of treatment with hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis. The median survival benefit with hemodiafiltration ranged from 2 to 48 months. Patients who benefited most from hemodiafiltration were younger, less likely to have diabetes or a cardiovascular history and had higher serum creatinine and albumin levels. Internal-external cross validation showed adequate discrimination and calibration.

Conclusion

Although overall mortality is reduced by hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis in ESKD patients, the absolute survival benefit can vary greatly between individuals. Our results indicate that the effects of hemodiafiltration on survival can be predicted using a combination of readily available patient and disease characteristics, which could guide shared decision-making.

The rationale and clinical potential of on-line hemodiafiltration as renal replacement therapy

On-line hemodiafiltration (ol-HDF) was developed in the 1980s in response to the unmet medical needs observed with conventional low- and high-flux hemodialysis. Firstly, the limited overall efficacy of conventional HD treatment programs as compared to native kidney function has been consistently documented over the broad MW spectrum of uremic toxins as well as fluid volume and hemodynamic control. Secondly, the unphysiological profile of intermittent treatment leading to repetitive dialysis-induced hemodynamic stress is now a well-recognized component of cardiovascular disease and end organ damage. Thirdly, the bioincompatibility of patient-dialysis system leading to dialysis-induced biological reactions also identified as contributing to dialytic morbidity and mortality. To overcome these limitations and pitfalls, alternative convective-based therapies (hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration), using higher hemoincompatible membranes and ultrapure dialysis fluid, were proposed as a solution to enhance and enlarge MW spectrum of uremic compounds cleared and to reduce dialysis-patient biological interactions. In this context, online HDF appeared soon as the best viable and efficient renal replacement modality to cover these needs. Clinical development and implementation of ol-HDF showed also that dialytic convective dose matters with a threshold point (23 L/1.73 m² in postdilution mode) to observe clinical benefits and outcomes improvements.

Switching from high-flux dialysis to hemodiafiltration: Cost-consequences for patients, providers, and payers

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) achieves a more efficient reduction of the uremic toxic load compared to standard high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD) by virtue of the combined diffusive and convective clearances of a broad spectrum of uremic retention solutes. Clinical trials and registry data suggest that HDF improves patient outcomes. Despite the acknowledged need to improve survival rates of dialysis patients and the survival benefit HDF offers, there is little to no utilization in some countries (such as the US) in prescribing HDF to their patients. In this analysis, we present the healthcare value-based case for HDF (relative to HF-HD) from the patient, provider, and payor perspectives. The improved survival and reduced morbidity observed in studies conducted outside the US, as well as the reduced hospitalization, are attractive for each stakeholder. We also consider the potential barriers to greater utilization of HDF therapies, including unfounded concerns regarding additional costs of HDF, e.g., for the preparation and microbial testing of quality of substitution fluids. Ultrapure fluids are easily attainable and prepared from dialysis fluids using established "online" (OL) technologies. OL-HDF has matured to a level whereby little additional effort is required to safely implement it as all modern machine systems are today equipped with the OL-HDF functionality. Countries already convinced of the advantages of HF-HD are thus well positioned to make the transition to OL-HDF to achieve further clinical and associated economic benefits. Healthcare systems struggling to cope with the increasing demand for HD therapies would therefore, like patients, be beneficiaries in the long term with increased usage of OL-HDF for end stage kidney disease patients.

Why and how high volume hemodiafiltration may reduce cardiovascular mortality in stage 5 chronic kidney disease dialysis patients? A comprehensive literature review on mechanisms involved

Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) is an established renal replacement modality for patients with end stage chronic kidney disease that is now gaining rapid clinical acceptance worldwide. Currently, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that treatment with HDF is associated with better outcomes and reduced cardiovascular mortality for dialysis patients. In this comprehensive review, we provide an update on the potential mechanisms which may improve survival in HDF treated patients. The strongest evidence is for better hemodynamic stability and reduced endothelial dysfunction associated with HDF treatments. Clinically, this is marked by a reduced incidence of intradialytic hypotensive episodes, with a better hemodynamic response to ultrafiltration, mediated by an increase in total peripheral vascular resistance and extra-vascular fluid recruitment, most likely driven by the negative thermal balance associated with online HDF therapy. In addition, endothelial function appears to be improved due to a combination of a reduction of the inflammatory and oxidative stress complex syndrome and exposure to circulating cardiovascular uremic toxins. Reports of reversed cardiovascular remodeling effects with HDF may be confounded by volume and blood pressure management, which are strongly linked to center clinical practices. Currently, treatment with HDF appears to improve the survival of dialysis patients predominantly due to a reduction in their cardiovascular burden, and this reduction is linked to the sessional convection volume exchanged.

Efficacy of medium cut-off dialyzers and comparison with high-flux dialyzers in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Medium cut‐off (MCO) dialyzers were designed to provide better clearance of uremic toxins. We conducted a meta‐analysis comparing MCO with high‐flux (HF) dialyzers for the effect on uremic toxins in maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients. Five databases were systematically searched for relevant studies and nine studies were identified finally. Reduction ratio (RR) of urea, urea, creatinine, β2‐macroglobulin (β2‐MG), kappa free light chain (κFLC), and lambda FLC (λFLC) levels were not significantly different between MCO and HF dialyzers. But RR of β2‐MG, κFLC, and λFLC were greater for MCO than HF dialyzers. MCO dialyzers could better reduce tumor necrosis factor‐α (TNF‐α) levels. Subgroup analysis stratified by study design indicated that in randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, albumin levels was lower in MCO than HF dialyzers group, but the two dialyzers treatments were equivalent in non‐RCT subgroup. Compared with HF dialyzers, MCO dialyzers provided higher middle‐molecules uremic toxins clearance and obviously reduced TNF‐α levels.

Cost-Effectiveness of Home Hemodialysis With Bedside Portable Dialysis Machine "DIMI" in the United Arab Emirates

Background and objective

The incidence and prevalence of patients requiring renal replacement therapies (RRTs) are increasing worldwide and a large number of these patients die prematurely due to the unavailability of treatment. While in-center hemodialysis remains the most commonly practiced modality globally, more and more patients find it unsuitable due to their frail condition, difficulty in ambulation, and time lost in traveling, etc. Such patients find the self-administered or nurse-assisted home hemodialysis (NAHHD) more suitable. The costly and recurring nature of these therapies prompted us to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness aspect of these two treatment modalities. Thus, the aim of the study was to investigate if home hemodialysis (HHD) with a portable hemodialysis machine was cost-effective in comparison to in-center hemodialysis for patients of end-stage renal failure (ESRF) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This is the first study of its kind to be conducted in the UAE.

Methodology

The study topic was developed based on an informal inquiry from the health regulator of Abu Dhabi if HHD was cost-effective compared to in-center hemodialysis with an emphasis on a portable dialysis machine. No such head-to-head study performed in the UAE was available. Hence, a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) design was chosen as the investigative method. An outline of the study was drafted, and a literature search of Science of Web, PubMed, and Cochrane Evidence was performed using the keywords "Home Hemodialysis", "home-based Dialysis", "Cost-effectiveness of Dialysis", "Cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapy", etc. A review of the article titles was performed to include the articles relevant to the cost of RRTs and the economic burden of ESRF. Full text and abstracts of those articles were retrieved, studied, and, the articles that were found not relevant were excluded. The remaining articles were studied and used in the evidence synthesis. DIMI was chosen to represent a standard type of recently developed portable dialysis machines.

Results

It was interesting to find out during the review that HHD and in-center hemodialysis had been developed simultaneously but the former had eventually fallen out of favor. The review revealed that HHD is not only as effective as in-center hemodialysis but is also associated with better survival benefits over the latter. Several studies have found it to be significantly cost-effective compared to in-center hemodialysis. Newer types of HHD machines make it easier for the patients or their family/caregivers to administer it safely and effectively at home and while traveling. They have regenerated interest in HHD and the Medicare administration in the USA has already decided to make use of it at a more frequent rate.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence in the available literature, HHD is cost-effective when compared to in-center hemodialysis in terms of survival benefits, quality of life (QoL) of patients, and monetary savings. Newer portable bedside dialysis machines provide better safety and have simplified the procedure of hemodialysis, making HHD more acceptable to patients and caregivers. We believe HHD should be the preferred modality of treatment instead of in-center hemodialysis, and that applies to UAE too.

Achieving high convective volume in hemodiafiltration: Lessons learned after successful implementation in the HDFit trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

High-volume online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) associates with improved outcomes compared to hemodialysis (HD), provided adequate dosing is achieved as estimated from convective volume (CV). Achievement of high CV and its impact on biochemical indicators following a standardized protocol converting HD patients to OL-HDF has not been systematically reported. We assessed the success of implementation of OL-HDF in clinics naïve to the modality.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

We analyzed the results of the implementation of postdilution OL-HDF in patients randomized to the HDF arm of a clinical trial (impact of hemoDiaFIlTration on physical activity and self-reported outcomes: a randomized controlled trial (HDFit) trial [ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02787161]). The day before randomization of the first patient to OL-HDF at each clinic staff started a 3-day in-person training module on operation of Fresenius 5008 CorDiax machine in HDF mode. Patients were converted from high-flux HD to OL-HDF under oversight of trainers. OL-HDF was performed over a 6-months follow-up with a CV target of 22 L/treatment. We characterized median achieved CV >22 L/treatment record and analyzed the impact of HDF on biochemical variables.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients (mean age 53 ± 16 years, 29% with diabetes, and 11% had a catheter) from 13 clinics randomized to the OL-HDF arm of the trial were converted from HD to HDF. Median CV > 22 L/treatment was achieved in 99% (94/95) of OL-HDF patients throughout follow-up. Monthly mean CV ranged from 27.1 L to 27.5 L. OL-HDF provided an increased single pool Kt/V at 3-months (0.2 [95% CI: 0.1-0.3]) and 6-months (0.2 [95% CI: 0.1-0.4]) compared to baseline, and reduced phosphate at 3-months (-0.4 mg/dL [95% CI: -0.8 to -0.12]) of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

High-volume online hemodiafiltration was successfully implemented with 99% of patients achieving protocol defined CV target. Monthly mean CV was consistently >22 L/treatment during follow-up. Kt/V increased, and phosphate decreased with OL-HDF. Findings resulting from a short training period in several dialysis facilities appear to suggest HDF is an easily implementable technique.

Multipoint dilution hemofiltration: A new technology for maximum convective clearance

Convection-based renal replacement therapies (RRTs) have the potential to improve patient outcomes when compared to diffusion-based RRT such as hemodialysis (HD), but have limited clearance rates. We propose and characterize multipoint dilution hemofiltration (MPD-HF), a purely convective blood purification technology which removes the fundamental filtration limit associated with convective RRT resulting in clearance rates on par with HD. In MPD-HF, filtration of liquid and solutes occurs along the length of the hollow fibers that convey the blood, and substitution fluid is pushed into the fibers at multiple points along their length. Since multiple filtration and dilution steps are contained within one pass of the blood through the hollow fiber, the fraction of fluid that can be filtered may be increased to allow a high clearance rate that removes a wide range of toxins. In vitro tests yielded an average steady-state filtrate fraction of 68%, exceeding commercial HDF cartridge filtrate fractions by a factor of approximately 3. The molecular weights of molecules cleared spans up to the cutoff of 66 kDa for albumin.

Evaluation of the efficacy of a medium cut-off dialyser and comparison with other high-flux dialysers in conventional haemodialysis and online haemodiafiltration

BACKGROUND

Online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality versus conventional haemodialysis (HD); however, it is not always available. In these situations, a novel class of membranes with a higher pore size, medium cut-off (MCO) dialysers, could be promising. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of an MCO dialyser in the removal of small and medium-size molecules and compare it with standard high-flux (HF) dialysers in HD and OL-HDF.

METHODS

In this crossover study, 18 prevalent HD patients were studied in three single mid-week dialysis treatments during three consecutive weeks as follows: first week with OL-HDF with a standard HF dialyser, second week with conventional HD with a standard HF dialyser and third week with conventional HD with an MCO dialyser. Reduction ratios (RRs) of different-sized molecules and albumin losses were collected for the different dialysers.

RESULTS

MCO HD provided a greater reduction of middle and larger middle molecules compared with standard HF HD [rate reduction (RR) β2-microglobulin 74.7% versus 69.7%, P=0.01; RR myoglobin 62.5% versus 34.3%, P=0.001; RR prolactin 60% versus 32.8%, P=0.001; RR α1-glycoprotein 2.8% versus -0.1%, P=0.01]. We found no difference in the clearance of small and larger middle molecules comparing MCO HD with OL-HDF. Albumin losses were 0.03  g/session with MCO HD and 3.1  g/session with OL-HDF (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

MCO HD is superior to standard HF HD in the removal of middle and larger middle molecules and it is not inferior to OL-HDF in the clearance of small and larger middle molecules. Thus it could be an alternative in patients in which it is not possible to perform OL-HDF.

Impact of Regular or Extended Hemodialysis and Hemodialfiltration on Plasma Oxalate Concentrations in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease

Introduction

Calcium oxalate supersaturation is regularly exceeded in the plasma of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Previous reports have indicated that hemodialfiltration (HDF) lowers elevated plasma oxalate (P_Ox) concentrations more effectively compared with hemodialysis (HD). We reevaluate the therapeutic strategy for optimized P_Ox reduction with advanced dialysis equipment and provide data on the effect of extended treatment time on dialytic oxalate kinetics.

Methods

Fourteen patients with ESRD who underwent HDF 3 times a week for 4 to 4.5 hours (regular HDF; n = 8) or 7 to 7.5 hours (extended HDF; n = 6) were changed to HD for 2 weeks and then back to HDF for another 2 weeks. P_Ox was measured at baseline, pre-, mid-, and postdialysis, and 2 hours after completion of the treatment session.

Results

Baseline P_Ox for all patients averaged 28.0 ± 7.0 μmol/l. Intradialytic P_Ox reduction was approximately 90% and was not significantly different between groups or treatment modes [F(1) = 0.63; P = 0.44]. Mean postdialysis P_Ox concentrations were 3.3 ± 1.8 μmol/l. A rebound of 2.1 ± 1.9 μmol/l was observed within 2 hours after dialysis. After receiving 2 weeks of the respective treatment, predialysis P_Ox concentrations on HD did not differ significantly from those on HDF [F(1) = 0.21; P = 0.66]. Extended treatment time did not provide any added benefit [F(1) = 0.76; P = 0.40].

Discussion

In contrast to earlier observations, our data did not support a benefit of HDF over HD for P_Ox reduction. With new technologies evolving, our results emphasized the need to carefully reevaluate and update traditional therapeutic regimens for optimized uremic toxin removal, including those used for oxalate.