Cost-effectiveness analysis of vascular access referral policies

0

The optimal timing of vascular access referral for patients with chronic kidney disease who may need hemodialysis (HD) is a pressing question in nephrology. Current referral policies have not been rigorously compared with respect to costs and benefits and do not consider patient-specific factors such as age” Shechter et al (2017).

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of vascular access referral for patients with chronic kidney disease who may need hemodialysis (HD) is a pressing question in nephrology. Current referral policies have not been rigorously compared with respect to costs and benefits and do not consider patient-specific factors such as age.

STUDY DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulation model.

SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with chronic kidney disease, referred to a multidisciplinary kidney clinic in a universal health care system.

MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMEFRAME: Cost-effectiveness analysis, payer perspective, lifetime horizon.

INTERVENTION: The following vascular access referral policies are considered: central venous catheter (CVC) only, arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG) referral upon HD initiation, AVF (or AVG) referral when HD is forecast to begin within 12 (or 3 for AVG) months, AVF (or AVG) referral when estimated glomerular filtration rate is <15 (or <10 for AVG) mL/min/1.73m2.

OUTCOMES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, in 2014 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained).

RESULTS: The ICER of AVF (AVG) referral within 12 (3) months of forecasted HD initiation, compared to using only a CVC, is ∼$105k/QALY ($101k/QALY) at a population level (HD costs included). Pre-HD AVF or AVG referral dominates delaying referral until HD initiation. The ICER of pre-HD referral increases with patient age. Results are most sensitive to erythropoietin costs, ongoing HD costs, and patients’ utilities for HD. When ongoing HD costs are excluded from the analysis, pre-HD AVF dominates both pre-HD AVG and CVC-only policies.

LIMITATIONS: Literature-based estimates for HD, AVF, and AVG utilities are limited.

CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of vascular access referral is largely driven by the annual costs of HD, erythropoietin costs, and access-specific utilities. Further research is needed in the field of dialysis-related quality of life to inform decision making regarding vascular access referral.

Reference:

Shechter, S.M., Chandler, T., Skandari, M.R. and Zalunardo, N. (2017) Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Vascular Access Referral Policies in CKD. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. June 7th. [Epub ahead of print].

doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.04.020.

Thank you to our partners for supporting IVTEAM

Other stories

Loading…

Share.

Comments are closed.

Free Email Updates
Join 5.5K IVTEAM members. Subscribe now and be the first to receive all the latest free updates from IVTEAM!
100% Privacy. We don't spam.