Ev Diyalizine Yönelik Yapılan Ekonomik Değerlendirme Çalışmalarının İncelenmesi

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 716 - 726, 22.09.2021

Hüseyin Demir Pınar Yalçın Balçık

https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.872168

Abstract

Böbrek hastalığı, dünya genelinde önemli bir sağlık problemi olup 2030 yılına kadar böbrek yetmezliği hastalarının yaklaşık olarak 5 milyon civarında olması beklenmektedir. Sağlık ve ekonomi üzerinde zorlayıcı etki oluşturan böbrek yetmezliğinin tedavisi için farklı tedavi yöntemleri üzerine tartışmalar devam etmektedir. Böbrek nakli, merkez hemodiyalizi ve periton diyalizine ek olarak son yıllarda ev diyalizi yöntemi böbrek yetmezliği hastalarının tedavisinde maliyet-etkili bir yol olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Literatürde yer alan ekonomik değerlendirme çalışmaları ev diyalizinin maliyet-etkili olduğuna işaret etmektedir ancak bu çalışmalarda kaynak tahsis kararlarına ışık tutacak bütün maliyetlerin göz önünde bulundurulmadığı, sadece belli bir zamanı yansıtan kesitsel çalışmalar olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Ayrıca bu çalışmaların hemen hemen tamamında maliyetlerin simülasyonunda Markov model benimsenen tek yöntem olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Ev diyalizinin maliyet-etkili olup olmadığı ile ilgili geçerlik ve güvenirlik düzeyi yüksek sonuçlar elde etmek için bu yöntemin yanı sıra Monte Carlo simülasyonu ve sistem dinamikleri modellemesi gibi farklı yöntemlerden yararlanılmalıdır.

Keywords

Ev Diyalizi, Ekonomik Değerlendirme, Maliyet-Etkililik

References

• 1. Liu FX, Treharne C, Arici M, Crowe L, Culleton B. High-dose hemodialysis versus conventional in-center hemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective. Value Heal. 2015;18(1):17–24.
• 2. Howell M, Walker RC, Howard K. Cost effectiveness of dialysis modalities: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(3):315–30.
• 3. Cherukuri S, Bajo M, Colussi G, Corciulo R, Fessi H, Ficheux M, et al. Home hemodialysis treatment and outcomes: retrospective analysis of the knowledge to improve home dialysis network in Europe (KIHDNEy) cohort 11 medical and health sciences 1103 Clinical Sciences. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19(1):1–10.
• 4. Suri RS, Li L, Nesrallah GE. The risk of hospitalization and modality failure with home dialysis. Kidney Int. 2015;88(2):360–8.
• 5. Wong CKH, Chen JY, Fung SKS, Lo WK, Lui SL, Chan TM, et al. Health-related quality of life and health utility of Chinese patients undergoing nocturnal home haemodialysis in comparison with other modes of dialysis. Nephrology. 2019;24(6):630–7.
• 6. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–82.
• 7. McFarlane PA, Bayoumi AM, Pierratos A, Redelmeier DA. The quality of life and cost utility of home nocturnal and conventional in-center hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 2003;64(3):1004–11.
• 8. Klarenbach S, Tonelli M, Pauly R, Walsh M, Culleton B, So H, et al. Economic evaluation of frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis based on a randomized controlled trial. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25(3):587–94.
• 9. Nadeau-Fredette AC, Bargman JM, Chan CT. Clinical outcome of home hemodialysis in patients with previous peritoneal dialysis exposure: Evaluation of the integrated home dialysis model. Perit Dial Int. 2015;35(3):316–23.
• 10. Chan CT, Wallace E, Golper TA, Rosner MH, Seshasai RK, Glickman JD, et al. Exploring barriers and potential solutions in home dialysis: an NKF-KDOQI conference outcomes report. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;73(3):363–71.
• 11. Tennankore KK, Chan CT, Curran SP. Intensive home haemodialysis: benefits and barriers. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2012;8(9):515–22.
• 12. Tenekeci EG, Kara, B. Ev hemodiyalizinin yaygınlaşmasının önündeki engeller nelerdir? Nefroloji Hemşireliği Derg. 2016;11(1):73-78.
• 13. Veith EM, Sherman JE, Pellino TA, Yasui NY. Qualitative analysis of the peer-mentoring relationship among individuals with spinal cord injury. Rehab. Psychol. 2006;51(4):289-298.
• 14. Nesrallah GE, Li L, Suri RS. Comparative effectiveness of home dialysis therapies: a matched cohort study. Can J Kidney Heal Dis. 2016;3(1):1–12.
• 15. Chertow GM, Levin NW, Beck GJ, Daugirdas JT, Eggers PW, Kliger AS, et al. Long-term effects of frequent in-center hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27(6):1830–6.
• 16. Nadeau-Fredette AC, Chan CT, Cho Y, Hawley CM, Pascoe EM, Clayton PA, et al. Outcomes of integrated home dialysis care: a multi-centre, multi-national registry study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30(11):1897–904.
• 17. Rydell H, Ivarsson K, Almquist M, Segelmark M, Clyne N. Improved long-term survival with home hemodialysis compared with institutional hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: a matched cohort study. BMC Nephrol. 2019;20(1):1–9.
• 18. MacRae JM, Ahmed SB, Atkar R, Hemmelgarn BR. A randomized trial comparing buttonhole with rope ladder needling in conventional hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1632–1638.
• 19. Christensen LD, Skadborg MB, Mortensen AH, Mortensen C, Møller JK, Lemming L, et al. Bacteriology of the buttonhole cannulation tract in hemodialysis patients: a prospective cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;72(2):234–42.
• 20. Komenda P, Copland M, Makwana J, Djurdjev O, Sood MM, Levin A. The cost of starting and maintaining a large home hemodialysis program. Kidney Int. 2010;77(11):1039–45. 21. Qamar M, Bender F, Rault R, Piraino B. The United States’ perspectives on home dialysis. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2009;16(3):189–97.
• 22. Young BA, Chan C, Blagg C, Lockridge R, Golper T, Finkelstein F, et al. How to overcome barriers and establish a successful home HD program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(12):2023–32.
• 23. Landolina M, Perego GB, Lunati M, Curnis A, Guenzati G, Vicentini A, et al. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation. 2012;125(24):2985–92.
• 24. Chang JH, Oh J, Park SK, Lee J, Kim SG, Kim SJ, et al. Frequent patient retraining at home reduces the risks of peritoneal dialysis-related infections: a randomised study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1–9.
• 25. Marshall MR, Walker RC, Polkinghorne KR, Lynn KL. Survival on home dialysis in New Zealand. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):1–11.
• 26. Lafrance JP, Rahme E, Iqbal S, Elftouh N, Vallée M, Laurin LP, et al. Association of dialysis modality with risk for infection-related hospitalization: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1598–605.
• 27. Weinhandl ED, Nieman KM, Gilbertson DT, Collins AJ. Hospitalization in daily home hemodialysis and matched thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(1):98–108.
• 28. Culleton B, Walsh M, Quinn R, Donnelly S, Friedrich M, Kumar A, et al. Effect of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis versus conventional hemodialysis. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(11):1291–9.
• 29. Kaysen GA, Dubin JA, Müller HG, Rosales L, Levin NW, Mitch WE. Inflammation and reduced albumin synthesis associated with stable decline in serum albumin in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2004;65(4):1408–15.
• 30. Rocco MV, Lockridge RS, Beck GJ, Eggers PW, Gassman JJ, Greene T, et al. The effects of frequent nocturnal home hemodialysis: the frequent hemodialysis network nocturnal trial. Kidney Int. 2011;80(10):1080–91. 31. Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A, Howard K, Webster AC. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9).
• 32. Beby AT, Cornelis T, Zinck R, Liu FX. Cost-effectiveness of high dose hemodialysis in comparison to conventional ın-center hemodialysis in the Netherlands. Adv Ther. 2016;33(11):2032–48.
• 33. Howard K, Salkeld G, White S, McDonald S, Chadban S, Craig JC, et al. The cost-effectiveness of increasing kidney transplantation and home-based dialysis. Nephrology. 2009;14(1):123–32.
• 34. Walker R, Marshall MR, Morton RL, McFarlane P, Howard K. The cost-effectiveness of contemporary home haemodialysis modalities compared with facility haemodialysis: a systematic review of full economic evaluations. Nephrology. 2014;19(8):459–70.
• 35. Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N, Krueger H, Ferguson B, Wong C, Muirhead N. A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int. 1996;50:235-242.
• 36. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2016;316(10):1093–103.