Cost-utility analysis in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing kidney transplant; what pays? A systematic review

Sameera Senanayake; Nicholas Graves; Helen Healy; Keshwar Baboolal; Sanjeewa Kularatna

doi:10.1186/s12962-020-00213-z

Cost-utility analysis in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing kidney transplant; what pays? A systematic review

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020 May 19:18:18. doi: 10.1186/s12962-020-00213-z. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Sameera Senanayake¹, Nicholas Graves¹, Helen Healy^{2

3}, Keshwar Baboolal^{2

3}, Sanjeewa Kularatna¹

Affiliations

¹ 1Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, School of Public Health, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Ave, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD 4059 Australia.
² 2Royal Brisbane Hospital for Women, Brisbane, Australia.
³ 3School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Abstract

Background: Health systems are under pressure to deliver more effective care without expansion of resources. This is particularly pertinent to diseases like chronic kidney disease (CKD) that are exacting substantial financial burden to many health systems. The aim of this study is to systematically review the Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) evidence generated across interventions for CKD patients undergoing kidney transplant (KT).

Methods: A systemic review of CUA on the interventions for CKD patients undergoing KT was carried out using a search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and NHS-EED. The CHEERS checklist was used as a set of good practice criteria in determining the reporting quality of the economic evaluation. Quality of the data used to inform model parameters was determined using the modified hierarchies of data sources.

Results: A total of 330 articles identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Almost all (n = 15) the studies were from high income countries. Out of the 24 characteristics assessed in the CHEERS checklist, more than 80% of the selected studies reported 14 of the characteristics. Reporting of the CUA were characterized by lack of transparency of model assumptions, narrow economic perspective and incomplete assessment of the effect of uncertainty in the model parameters on the results. The data used for the economic model were satisfactory quality. The authors of 13 studies reported the intervention as cost saving and improving quality of life, whereas three studies were cost increasing and improving quality of life. In addition to the baseline analysis, sensitivity analysis was performed in all the evaluations except one. Transplanting certain high-risk donor kidneys (high risk of HIV and Hepatitis-C infected kidneys, HLA mismatched kidneys, high Kidney Donor Profile Index) and a payment to living donors, were found to be cost-effective.

Conclusions: The quality of economic evaluations reviewed in this paper were assessed to be satisfactory. Implementation of these strategies will significantly impact current systems of KT and require a systematic implementation plan and coordinated efforts from relevant stakeholders.

Keywords: Chronic kidney disease; Cost-utility analysis; QALY; Transplant.

Publication types

Review