• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury

A. Singh, S. Hussain, V. Kher, AJ. Palmer, M. Jose, B. Antony

. 2022 ; 22 (1) : 27-35. [pub] 20210502

Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22011470

INTRODUCTION: Though cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have evaluated continuous renal replacement therapy (RRTs) and intermittent RRTs in acute kidney injury (AKI) patients; it is yet to establish which RRT technique is most cost-effective. We systematically reviewed the current evidence from CEAs of CRRT versus IRRT in patients with AKI. AREAS COVERED: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases searched for CEAs comparing two RRTs. Overall, seven CEAs, two from Brazil and one from US, Canada, Colombia, Belgium, and Argentina were included. Five CEAs used Markov model, three reported following CHEERS, none accounted indirect costs. Time horizon varied from 1-year-lifetime. Marginal QALY gain with CRRT compared to IRRT was reported across CEAs. Older CEAs found CRRT to be costlier and not cost-effective than IRRT (ICER 2019 US$: 152,671$/QALY); latest CEAs (industry-sponsored) reported CRRT to be cost-saving versus IRRT (-117,614$/QALY). Risk of mortality, dialysis dependence, and incidence of renal recovery were the key drivers of cost-effectiveness. EXPERT OPINION: CEAs of RRTs for AKI show conflicting findings with secular trends. Latest CEAs suggested CRRT to be cost-effective versus IRRT with dialysis dependence rate as major driver of cost-effectiveness. Future CEAs, preferably non-industry sponsored, may account for indirect costs to improve the generalizability of CEAs.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22011470
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220506130831.0
007      
ta
008      
220425s2022 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1080/14737167.2021.1916471 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33934689
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Singh, Ambrish $u Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia $1 https://orcid.org/0000000246187507
245    12
$a A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury / $c A. Singh, S. Hussain, V. Kher, AJ. Palmer, M. Jose, B. Antony
520    9_
$a INTRODUCTION: Though cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have evaluated continuous renal replacement therapy (RRTs) and intermittent RRTs in acute kidney injury (AKI) patients; it is yet to establish which RRT technique is most cost-effective. We systematically reviewed the current evidence from CEAs of CRRT versus IRRT in patients with AKI. AREAS COVERED: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases searched for CEAs comparing two RRTs. Overall, seven CEAs, two from Brazil and one from US, Canada, Colombia, Belgium, and Argentina were included. Five CEAs used Markov model, three reported following CHEERS, none accounted indirect costs. Time horizon varied from 1-year-lifetime. Marginal QALY gain with CRRT compared to IRRT was reported across CEAs. Older CEAs found CRRT to be costlier and not cost-effective than IRRT (ICER 2019 US$: 152,671$/QALY); latest CEAs (industry-sponsored) reported CRRT to be cost-saving versus IRRT (-117,614$/QALY). Risk of mortality, dialysis dependence, and incidence of renal recovery were the key drivers of cost-effectiveness. EXPERT OPINION: CEAs of RRTs for AKI show conflicting findings with secular trends. Latest CEAs suggested CRRT to be cost-effective versus IRRT with dialysis dependence rate as major driver of cost-effectiveness. Future CEAs, preferably non-industry sponsored, may account for indirect costs to improve the generalizability of CEAs.
650    12
$a akutní poškození ledvin $x terapie $7 D058186
650    12
$a kontinuální metody náhrady funkce ledvin $x ekonomika $7 D000079664
650    _2
$a analýza nákladů a výnosů $7 D003362
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a intermitentní metody náhrady funkce ledvin $x ekonomika $7 D000079763
650    _2
$a dialýza ledvin $7 D006435
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Hussain, Salman $u Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000216918428
700    1_
$a Kher, Vijay $u Medanta Kidney and Urology Institute, Division of Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Medicine, Medanta, the Medicity, Gurugram, Haryana, India
700    1_
$a Palmer, Andrew J $u Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia $u Centre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
700    1_
$a Jose, Matthew $u Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia $u Renal Unit, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia
700    1_
$a Antony, Benny $u Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia $1 https://orcid.org/0000000187046084
773    0_
$w MED00174435 $t Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research $x 1744-8379 $g Roč. 22, č. 1 (2022), s. 27-35
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33934689 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220425 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220506130824 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1789194 $s 1162668
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 22 $c 1 $d 27-35 $e 20210502 $i 1744-8379 $m Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research $n Expert rev. pharmacoecon. outcomes res. $x MED00174435
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220425

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace