A systematic review and quality assessment of economic evaluations of kidney replacement therapies in end-stage kidney disease
Issued Date
2024-10-03
Resource Type
eISSN
20452322
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85205606159
Pubmed ID
39362958
Journal Title
Scientific reports
Volume
14
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Scientific reports Vol.14 No.1 (2024) , 23018
Suggested Citation
Nyokabi P., Youngkong S., Bagepally B.S., Okech T., Chaikledkaew U., McKay G.J., Attia J., Thakkinstian A. A systematic review and quality assessment of economic evaluations of kidney replacement therapies in end-stage kidney disease. Scientific reports Vol.14 No.1 (2024) , 23018. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-73735-8 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/101597
Title
A systematic review and quality assessment of economic evaluations of kidney replacement therapies in end-stage kidney disease
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is fatal without treatment by kidney replacement therapies (KRTs). However, access to these treatment modalities can be problematic given the high costs. This systematic review (SR) aims to provide an updated economic evaluation of pairwise comparisons of KRTs and the implications for the proportion of patients with access to the KRT modalities, i.e., kidney transplantation (KT), hemodialysis (HD), and peritoneal dialysis (PD). This SR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020. We searched studies in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) registry, from inception to March 2023. Thirteen studies were included with pairwise comparisons among three KRTs, with varying proportions of patients for each modality. Seven studies were from high-income countries, including five from Europe. Summary findings are presented on a cost-effectiveness plane and incremental net benefit (INB). KT was the most cost-effective intervention across the pairwise comparisons. KT and PD were both more cost-effective alternatives to HD. HD was more costly and less effective than PD in all studies except one. Concurrent efforts to increase both KT and PD represented the best scenario to improve treatment options for ESKD patients.