It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
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.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment Graduate Program, Bangkok, Thailand (GRID:grid.10223.32) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0490); Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya (GRID:grid.415727.2)
2 Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment Graduate Program, Bangkok, Thailand (GRID:grid.10223.32) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0490); Mahidol University, Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Bangkok, Thailand (GRID:grid.10223.32) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0490)
3 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India (GRID:grid.419587.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1767 6269)
4 Queen’s University Belfast, Centre for Public Health, Belfast, United Kingdom (GRID:grid.4777.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 0374 7521)
5 University of Newcastle, Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine and Public Health, Newcastle, Australia (GRID:grid.266842.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 8831 109X)
6 Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment Graduate Program, Bangkok, Thailand (GRID:grid.10223.32) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0490); Mahidol University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand (GRID:grid.10223.32) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0490)