Economic evaluation of dialysis and comprehensive conservative care for chronic kidney disease using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L; a comparison of evaluation instruments

Cost-benefit analysis of haemodialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease in Abuja, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Significant gaps in scholarship on the cost-benefit analysis of haemodialysis exist in low-middle-income countries, including Nigeria. The study, therefore, assessed the cost-benefit of haemodialysis compared with comprehensive conservative care (CCC) to determine if haemodialysis is socially worthwhile and justifies public funding in Nigeria.

METHODS

The study setting is Abuja, Nigeria. The study used a mixed-method design involving primary data collection and analysis of secondary data from previous studies. We adopted an ingredient-based costing approach. The mean costs and benefits of haemodialysis were derived from previous studies. The mean costs and benefits of CCC were obtained from a primary cross-sectional survey. We estimated the benefit-cost ratios (BCR) and net benefits to determine the social value of the two interventions.

RESULTS

The net benefit of haemodialysis (2,251.30) was positive, while that of CCC was negative (-1,197.19). The benefit-cost ratio of haemodialysis was 1.09, while that of CCC was 0.66. The probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses results demonstrate that haemodialysis was more cost-beneficial than CCC, and the BCRs of haemodialysis remained above one in most scenarios, unlike CCC's BCR.

CONCLUSION

The benefit of haemodialysis outweighs its cost, making it cost-beneficial to society and justifying public funding. However, the National Health Insurance Authority requires additional studies, such as budget impact analysis, to establish the affordability of full coverage of haemodialysis.

Conservative Management in End-Stage Kidney Disease between the Dialysis Myth and Neglected Evidence-Based Medicine

In the last few decades, the aging of the general population has significantly increased the number of elderly patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who require renal replacement therapy. ESKD elders are often frail and highly comorbid with social issues and seem to not benefit from dialysis in terms of survival and quality of life. Conservative management (CM) could represent a valid treatment option, allowing them to live for months to years with a modest impact on their habits. Despite these possible advantages, CM remains underused due to the myth of dialysis as the only effective treatment option for all ESKD patients regardless of its impact on quality of life and survival. Both CM and dialysis remain valid alternatives in the management of ESKD. However, assessing comorbidities, disabilities, and social context should drive the choice of the best possible treatment for ESKD, while in elderly patients with short life expectancies, referring them to palliative care seems the most reasonable choice.