Detailed Information on Publication Record
2022
A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury
SINGH, A., Mohammad Salman HUSSAIN, V. KHER, A. J. PALMER, M. JOSE et. al.Basic information
Original name
A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury
Authors
SINGH, A., Mohammad Salman HUSSAIN (356 India, belonging to the institution), V. KHER, A. J. PALMER, M. JOSE and B. ANTONY (guarantor)
Edition
EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES RESEARCH, ABINGDON, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2022, 1473-7167
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Článek v odborném periodiku
Field of Study
30104 Pharmacology and pharmacy
Country of publisher
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Confidentiality degree
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
References:
Impact factor
Impact factor: 2.300
RIV identification code
RIV/00216224:14110/22:00124962
Organization unit
Faculty of Medicine
UT WoS
000646164100001
Keywords in English
Acute kidney injury; cost-effectiveness analysis; CRRT; dialysis; health economics; IRRT; systematic review
Změněno: 1/2/2022 10:19, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová
Abstract
V originále
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.