MyMedR

Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Economic evaluation of centre haemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Ministry of Health hospitals, Malaysia

Hooi LS, Lim TO, Goh A, Wong HS, Tan CC, Ahmad G, et al.

Nephrology (Carlton), 2005 Feb;10(1):25-32.
PMID: 15705178 DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2005.00360.x

BACKGROUND: This is a multi-centre study to determine cost efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Ministry of Health centre haemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) programme.
METHODS: Forty-four haemodialysis and 11 CAPD centres were enrolled in this study in 2001. Sixty patients, 30 from each modality, were evaluated. Micro-costing was used to determine costs.
RESULTS: The number of haemodialyses conducted ranged from 402 to 23,000 procedures per year, while for CAPD, output ranged from 70 to 2300 patient months/year. Cost ranged from RM79.61 to RM475.79 per haemodialysis treatment, with a mean cost of RM169 per HD (USD 1 = RM 3.80). The cost of CAPD treatment ranged from RM1400 to RM3200 per patient month, with a mean of RM2186. Both modalities incurred similar outpatient costs. The cost of erythropoeitin per year is RM4500 and RM2500 for haemodialysis and CAPD, respectively. The number of life years saved is 10.96 years for haemodialysis and 5.21 years for CAPD. Cost per life year saved is RM33 642 for haemodialysis and RM31 635 for CAPD. The cost for land, building, equipment, overheads, and staff were higher for haemodialysis, while consumables and hospitalization cost more for CAPD. Sensitivity analysis was performed for two discount rates (3 and 5%), varying erythropoietin doses and maximum and minimum overheads. Relative cost effectiveness of haemodialysis and CAPD was unchanged in all sensitivity scenarios, except for overhead costs, which influenced the cost effectiveness of HD.
CONCLUSION: It is economically viable to promote the use of both CAPD and haemodialysis because the cost effectiveness of both are nearly equal.

Matched MeSH terms: Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory/economics*
Fulltext Cost effectiveness evaluation of the Ministry of Health Malaysia dialysis programme

Lim TO, Lim YN, Wong HS, Ahmad G, Singam TS, Morad Z, et al.

Med J Malaysia, 1999 Dec;54(4):442-52.
PMID: 11072461

We determine the cost effectiveness of centre and home haemodialysis (HD), continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and intermittent peritoneal dialysis (IPD) treatment in the Ministry of Health (MOH) programme. The viewpoint taken for this evaluation is that of MOH. Cost categories identified were capital cost, dialysis operational cost, medical cost and general hospital cost. Cost estimates were mostly based on actual resource utilisation. Life years saved were estimated based on Dialysis Registry data on 2480 HD and 732 CAPD patients. Overall, the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of centre HD was RM21620/life year saved. Those of home HD, CAPD and IPD were RM23375, RM30469 and RM36016 respectively. Sensitivity analyses did not change the ranking of the CER. We conclude the MOH dialysis programme was cost-effective, and among the various dialysis modalities centre HD was the most cost-effective.

Matched MeSH terms: Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory/economics*
Fulltext Cost utility analysis of end stage renal disease treatment in Ministry of Health dialysis centres, Malaysia: Hemodialysis versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

Surendra NK, Abdul Manaf MR, Hooi LS, Bavanandan S, Mohamad Nor FS, Firdaus Khan SS, et al.

PLoS One, 2019;14(10):e0218422.
PMID: 31644577 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218422

OBJECTIVES: In Malaysia, there is exponential growth of patients on dialysis. Dialysis treatment consumes a considerable portion of healthcare expenditure. Comparative assessment of their cost effectiveness can assist in providing a rational basis for preference of dialysis modalities.
METHODS: A cost utility study of hemodialysis (HD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) was conducted from a Ministry of Health (MOH) perspective. A Markov model was also developed to investigate the cost effectiveness of increasing uptake of incident CAPD to 55% and 60% versus current practice of 40% CAPD in a five-year temporal horizon. A scenario with 30% CAPD was also measured. The costs and utilities were sourced from published data which were collected as part of this study. The transitional probabilities and survival estimates were obtained from the Malaysia Dialysis and Transplant Registry (MDTR). The outcome measures were cost per life year (LY), cost per quality adjusted LY (QALY) and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the Markov model. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: LYs saved for HD was 4.15 years and 3.70 years for CAPD. QALYs saved for HD was 3.544 years and 3.348 for CAPD. Cost per LY saved was RM39,791 for HD and RM37,576 for CAPD. The cost per QALY gained was RM46,595 for HD and RM41,527 for CAPD. The Markov model showed commencement of CAPD in 50% of ESRD patients as initial dialysis modality was very cost-effective versus current practice of 40% within MOH. Reduction in CAPD use was associated with higher costs and a small devaluation in QALYs.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest provision of both modalities is fiscally feasible; increasing CAPD as initial dialysis modality would be more cost-effective.

Matched MeSH terms: Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory/economics*

Filters

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links