A TEN-YEAR HORIZON COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF THE SPANISH INTEGRATED RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY PROGRAM

Author(s)

Guillermo Villa, MSc, MA, Project Manager1, Jesus Cuervo, MSc, Project Manager1, Lucía F Ortiz, MSc, Project Manager1, J Emilio Sánchez, MD, Medical Doctor2, Pablo Rebollo, MD, PhD, Scientific Director11BAP Health Outcomes Research, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain; 2 Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain

OBJECTIVES: Performing a 10-year horizon (2007/2016) cost-effectiveness analysis of the integrated Spanish Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) program, from the National Health System perspective. METHODS: A deterministic Markov chain model, allowing for incident patients, was designed to predict transitions between four states (hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), renal transplant (TX), and death (D)) for the period 2007/2016, providing future incidence, prevalence, and survivability estimates. Transition and mortality probabilities were calibrated using data from the Spanish Nephrology Society (SEN) and the Spanish National Statistics Institute (INE) for the period 1996/2006. Information on direct and indirect costs was gathered from several sources, including OBLIKUE database, regional official bulletins, literature review, and expert judgment. Data on utilities were obtained from a proprietary database (FIS 96/1327 Project). A sensitivity analysis on the main parameters of the model was performed in order to ensure that results were consistent. RESULTS: For the 2007/2016 period, average patients per year (HD, PD, and TX) were, respectively: 29,981; 3,348; 26,301. Average costs per patient and year (in 2007 discounted Euros) were: 39,026; 26,971; and 13,085. Average QALYs per patient and year were: 0.51; 0.55; and 0.68. Therefore, average cost-effectiveness was: 75,927; 49,478; and 19,253. TX was the optimal treatment, regarding cost-effectiveness estimates. Consequently, it was considered as the gold standard. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios were: -103,233 (TX vs. HD) and -156,636 (TX vs. PD). Net Health Profits were: 1.03 (TX vs. HD) and 0.60 (TX vs. PD). Consistency of these findings was supported by the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, TX is the most convenient treatment, as regards cost-effectiveness estimates. PD is also preferred to HD. National Health System authorities should, therefore, favor PD over HD. If that is the case, a Budget Impact Analysis would help to assess to which extent such approach would be worthy.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2008-11, ISPOR Europe 2008, Athens, Greece

Value in Health, Vol. 11, No. 6 (November 2008)

Code

PUK7

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

Urinary/Kidney Disorders

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×