Health economic evaluation of peritoneal dialysis based on cost-effectiveness in Japan: a preliminary study.
automated peritoneal dialysis
cost-utility analysis
diabetic nephropathy
medical service reimbursement
propensity score
quality-adjusted life year
Journal
ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR
ISSN: 1178-6981
Titre abrégé: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101560564
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
20
04
2019
accepted:
20
08
2019
entrez:
3
10
2019
pubmed:
3
10
2019
medline:
3
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In Japan, the medical expenditures associated with dialysis have garnered considerable interest; however, a cost-effectiveness evaluation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is yet to be evaluated. In particular, the health economics of the "PD first" concept, which can be advantageous for clinical practice and healthcare systems, must be evaluated. This multicenter study investigated the cost-effectiveness of PD. The major effectiveness indicator was quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with a preference-based utility value based on renal function, and the cost indicator was the amount billed for a medical service at each medical institution for qualifying illnesses. In comparison with hemodialysis (HD), a baseline analysis of PD therapy was conducted using a cost-utility analysis (CUA). Continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and automated PD (APD) were compared based on the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and propensity score (PS) with a limited number of cases. The mean duration since the start of PD was 35.0±14.4 months. The overall CUA for PD (179 patients) was USD 55,019/QALY, which was more cost effective (USD/monthly utility) compared with that for HD for 12-24 months (4,367 vs. 4,852; The cost-effectiveness of PD was potentially good in the elderly and in patients on dialysis for <24 months. Therefore, the prevalence of PD may influence the public health insurance system, particularly when applying the "PD first" concept.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In Japan, the medical expenditures associated with dialysis have garnered considerable interest; however, a cost-effectiveness evaluation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is yet to be evaluated. In particular, the health economics of the "PD first" concept, which can be advantageous for clinical practice and healthcare systems, must be evaluated.
METHODS
METHODS
This multicenter study investigated the cost-effectiveness of PD. The major effectiveness indicator was quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with a preference-based utility value based on renal function, and the cost indicator was the amount billed for a medical service at each medical institution for qualifying illnesses. In comparison with hemodialysis (HD), a baseline analysis of PD therapy was conducted using a cost-utility analysis (CUA). Continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and automated PD (APD) were compared based on the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and propensity score (PS) with a limited number of cases.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean duration since the start of PD was 35.0±14.4 months. The overall CUA for PD (179 patients) was USD 55,019/QALY, which was more cost effective (USD/monthly utility) compared with that for HD for 12-24 months (4,367 vs. 4,852;
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The cost-effectiveness of PD was potentially good in the elderly and in patients on dialysis for <24 months. Therefore, the prevalence of PD may influence the public health insurance system, particularly when applying the "PD first" concept.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31576157
doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S212911
pii: 212911
pmc: PMC6768123
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
579-590Informations de copyright
© 2019 Takura et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
T.T. received grants from Baxter International Inc. and Terumo Corp. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Kidney Int. 2002 Sep;62(3):1046-53
pubmed: 12164889
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2016 Mar 20;3:19
pubmed: 27006781
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 21;353(3):238-48
pubmed: 16034009
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014 Apr;29(4):885-92
pubmed: 24516226
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 27;6:30266
pubmed: 27461186
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1395-407
pubmed: 19332456
Health Econ. 1997 Mar-Apr;6(2):117-32
pubmed: 9158965
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008 May;23(5):1650-8
pubmed: 18065788
Korean J Intern Med. 2017 Jul;32(4):699-710
pubmed: 28651309
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jun;56(12):2407-19
pubmed: 12742604
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 10;9(3):e90119
pubmed: 24614569
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009 Jan;20(1):155-63
pubmed: 19092128
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007 Feb;22(2):552-9
pubmed: 17005526
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014 Aug;12(4):409-20
pubmed: 25017433
Am J Kidney Dis. 2016 Apr;67(4):617-28
pubmed: 26561355
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Mar;25(3):587-94
pubmed: 24231665
PLoS One. 2014 May 07;9(5):e96847
pubmed: 24806458
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(11):e3118
pubmed: 26986162
Perit Dial Int. 2000;20 Suppl 2:S134-41
pubmed: 10911659
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002 Nov;13(11):2762-9
pubmed: 12397047
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16 Suppl 5:61-6
pubmed: 11509687
Int Urol Nephrol. 2016 Jan;48(1):139-47
pubmed: 26560476
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011 Jan;26(1):282-91
pubmed: 20571097
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 14;11(6):e0156642
pubmed: 27300372
Nephrology (Carlton). 2009 Feb;14(1):123-32
pubmed: 19207859
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010 Jul;25(7):2288-96
pubmed: 20197284
Ther Apher Dial. 2015 Oct;19(5):441-9
pubmed: 26387878
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003 Dec;14(12):3270-7
pubmed: 14638926
Kidney Int. 2008 Jan;73(2):200-6
pubmed: 17914351
Perit Dial Int. 2008 Jun;28 Suppl 3:S117-22
pubmed: 18552239