HDX vs. HDF in End-Stage Kidney Disease: Cost-Minimization Study in Saudi Arabia
Author(s)
Ahmad Nader Fasseeh, PhD1, Nada Abaza, Bpharm2, Irenei Rostom Adly, BVetMed3, Nicolas Goux, MSc4, Ayman Karkar, PhD5, Khalid Ismail, MBA6, Ahmed Ghazi, MSc6, Mohammed Mahsoub Elsaht, MBA6, Sherif Abaza, MBA2, Omneya Mohamed, PhD5.
11.Syreon Middle East,Alexandria, Egypt 2. Faculty of Pharmacy Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt, 2Syreon Middle East, Alexandria, Egypt, 3Vantive, Middle East Africa, Cairo, Egypt, 4Vantive SAS, Guyancourt, France, 5Baxter Renal Business, Middle East Africa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 6Baxter Renal Business, Middle East Africa, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
11.Syreon Middle East,Alexandria, Egypt 2. Faculty of Pharmacy Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt, 2Syreon Middle East, Alexandria, Egypt, 3Vantive, Middle East Africa, Cairo, Egypt, 4Vantive SAS, Guyancourt, France, 5Baxter Renal Business, Middle East Africa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 6Baxter Renal Business, Middle East Africa, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
OBJECTIVES: Hemodialysis is an essential treatment modality for managing patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, it is associated with substantial operational costs due to high consumable requirements, including energy demands, and water consumption. HDX Expanded hemodialysis enabled by THERANOVA dialyzer offers an innovative alternative to hemodiafiltration (HDF), achieving comparable uremic toxins clearance. This study aims at comparing the operational and infrastructure costs of implementing HDX therapy versus HDF therapy within dialysis centers in Saudi Arabia.
METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was conducted from the public perspective over a 10-year time horizon. The model evaluates fixed and variable costs associated with the single pump dialysis machine using THERANOVA 400/500 dialyzer (HDX therapy) versus the double pump dialysis machine using high-flux 210H dialyzer (HDF therapy). Cost components considered device acquisition, maintenance, consumables, water and power consumption. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.
RESULTS: This study showed that HDX therapy was associated with significant cost reductions. HDX therapy was associated with around 21% reduction in the total cost per session (difference of 18.39 USD, exchange rate 0.27) in comparison with HDF therapy. The main driver for this cost reduction is that HDX therapy has around 80% lower device maintenance costs than HDF therapy, in addition to a 38% lower device cost, while maintaining almost the same variable cost with less than 1% increase. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results, showing that HDX therapy was the more economically favorable option across various testing scenarios. The model was most sensitive to costs and frequency of consumables.
CONCLUSIONS: HDX therapy is a cost-saving and operationally efficient dialysis modality compared to HDF therapy for patients with ESKD from the public perspective. The findings offer healthcare payers and policymakers evidence to support informed decision-making and efficient resource allocation.
METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was conducted from the public perspective over a 10-year time horizon. The model evaluates fixed and variable costs associated with the single pump dialysis machine using THERANOVA 400/500 dialyzer (HDX therapy) versus the double pump dialysis machine using high-flux 210H dialyzer (HDF therapy). Cost components considered device acquisition, maintenance, consumables, water and power consumption. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.
RESULTS: This study showed that HDX therapy was associated with significant cost reductions. HDX therapy was associated with around 21% reduction in the total cost per session (difference of 18.39 USD, exchange rate 0.27) in comparison with HDF therapy. The main driver for this cost reduction is that HDX therapy has around 80% lower device maintenance costs than HDF therapy, in addition to a 38% lower device cost, while maintaining almost the same variable cost with less than 1% increase. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results, showing that HDX therapy was the more economically favorable option across various testing scenarios. The model was most sensitive to costs and frequency of consumables.
CONCLUSIONS: HDX therapy is a cost-saving and operationally efficient dialysis modality compared to HDF therapy for patients with ESKD from the public perspective. The findings offer healthcare payers and policymakers evidence to support informed decision-making and efficient resource allocation.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE485
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Medical Technologies
Disease
Urinary/Kidney Disorders