Other formats:
BibTeX
LaTeX
RIS
@article{1785581,
author = {Singh, A. and Hussain, Mohammad Salman and Kher, V. and Palmer, A. J. and Jose, M. and Antony, B.},
article_location = {ABINGDON},
article_number = {1},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2021.1916471},
keywords = {Acute kidney injury; cost-effectiveness analysis; CRRT; dialysis; health economics; IRRT; systematic review},
language = {eng},
issn = {1473-7167},
journal = {EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES RESEARCH},
title = {A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury},
url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2021.1916471},
volume = {22},
year = {2022}
}
TY - JOUR
ID - 1785581
AU - Singh, A. - Hussain, Mohammad Salman - Kher, V. - Palmer, A. J. - Jose, M. - Antony, B.
PY - 2022
TI - A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury
JF - EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES RESEARCH
VL - 22
IS - 1
SP - 27-35
EP - 27-35
PB - TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
SN - 14737167
KW - Acute kidney injury
KW - cost-effectiveness analysis
KW - CRRT
KW - dialysis
KW - health economics
KW - IRRT
KW - systematic review
UR - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2021.1916471
N2 - 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.
ER -
SINGH, A., Mohammad Salman HUSSAIN, V. KHER, A. J. PALMER, M. JOSE and B. ANTONY. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury. \textit{EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS \&{} OUTCOMES RESEARCH}. ABINGDON: TAYLOR \&{} FRANCIS LTD, 2022, vol.~22, No~1, p.~27-35. ISSN~1473-7167. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2021.1916471.
|
