Abstract
Objectives
Kidney failure can be treated at home with peritoneal dialysis or home haemodialysis. The combination of reduced staffing, transport and overhead costs and improved quality of life through treatment at home could make initiating dialysis at home highly cost-effective. The primary objective is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of initiating patients on home dialysis therapy (HDT) compared with in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD). The secondary objective is to determine the upper limit of net benefit from removing potential service barriers within dialysis centres that hinder the adoption of HDT.
Method
A multistate model using UK Renal Registry data combined with national survey data was developed to estimate patient and dialysis centre influences on dialysis treatment modality changes and the duration in each modality. These are used as inputs to a microsimulation estimating the lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and UK National Health Service (NHS) costs incurred for patients, the cost-effectiveness of HDT compared with ICHD and the differences in costs and health outcomes associated with removing specific barriers to HDT uptake.
Results
Commencing HDT compared with ICHD resulted in 0.30 additional QALYs and saved Great British (GB) £15,272. HDT has an 82% probability of being cost-effective. Implementing quality-improvement initiatives and alleviating stresses on staff capacity are identified as influential in the multistate model. Addressing these led to QALY gains of 0.22 and 0.08 and cost increases of GB £10,059 and GB £5127 from an increase of life years lived of 0.54 and 0.22, respectively.
Conclusions
Initiating patients on HDT is cost-effective compared with ICHD. Alleviating stresses on staff capacity and implementing quality improvement initiatives in dialysis centres leads to health improvements, although these changes are not cost-effective owing to the associated increase in healthcare costs.
Kidney failure can be treated at home with peritoneal dialysis or home haemodialysis. The combination of reduced staffing, transport and overhead costs and improved quality of life through treatment at home could make initiating dialysis at home highly cost-effective. The primary objective is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of initiating patients on home dialysis therapy (HDT) compared with in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD). The secondary objective is to determine the upper limit of net benefit from removing potential service barriers within dialysis centres that hinder the adoption of HDT.
Method
A multistate model using UK Renal Registry data combined with national survey data was developed to estimate patient and dialysis centre influences on dialysis treatment modality changes and the duration in each modality. These are used as inputs to a microsimulation estimating the lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and UK National Health Service (NHS) costs incurred for patients, the cost-effectiveness of HDT compared with ICHD and the differences in costs and health outcomes associated with removing specific barriers to HDT uptake.
Results
Commencing HDT compared with ICHD resulted in 0.30 additional QALYs and saved Great British (GB) £15,272. HDT has an 82% probability of being cost-effective. Implementing quality-improvement initiatives and alleviating stresses on staff capacity are identified as influential in the multistate model. Addressing these led to QALY gains of 0.22 and 0.08 and cost increases of GB £10,059 and GB £5127 from an increase of life years lived of 0.54 and 0.22, respectively.
Conclusions
Initiating patients on HDT is cost-effective compared with ICHD. Alleviating stresses on staff capacity and implementing quality improvement initiatives in dialysis centres leads to health improvements, although these changes are not cost-effective owing to the associated increase in healthcare costs.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Applied Health Economics and Health Policy |
| Early online date | 25 May 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 25 May 2025 |