Peritoneal dialysis vs. hemodialysis among patients with end-stage renal disease in Iran: which is more cost-effective?

Abstract

Background: There is little economic evidence on different modalities among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Iran. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) among ESRD patients in Iran. Methods: From the health system perspective and with a 10-year time horizon, we conducted a cost-utility analysis based on a Markov model to compare three strategies of PD and HD [the second scenario (30% PD, 70% HD), the third scenario (50% PD, 50% HD) and the fourth scenario (70% PD, 30% HD)] among ESRD patients with the current situation (PD, 3% vs. HD, 97%) as the basic scenario (the first scenario) in Iran. Cost data for PD, HD and kidney transplantation were extracted from the medical records of 720 patients in the Health Insurance Organization (HIO) database. The Iranian version of the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire was filled out through direct interview with 518 patients with ESRD to obtain health utility values. Other variables such as transition probabilities and survival rates were extracted from the literature. To examine the uncertainty in all variables included in the study, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. TreeAge Pro 2020 software was used for data analysis. Findings: : Our analysis indicated that the average 10-year costs associated with the first scenario (S1), the second scenario (S2), the third scenario (S3) and the fourth scenario (S4) were 4750.5, 4846.8, 4918.2, and 4989.6 million Iranian Rial (IRR), respectively. The corresponding average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient were 2.68, 2.72, 2.75 and 2.78, respectively. The ICER for S2, S3 and S4 scenarios was estimated at 2268.2, 2266.7 and 2266.7 per a QALY gained, respectively. The analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 3,000,000,000 IRR (2.5 times the GDP per capita), the fourth scenario had a 63% probability of being cost-effective compared to the other scenarios. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the fourth scenario (70% PD vs. 30% HD) compared to the current situation (3% PD vs. 97% HD) among patients with ESKD is cost-effective at a threshold of 2.5 times the GDP per capita (US$4100 in 2022). Despite the high cost of PD, due to its greater effectiveness, it is recommended that policymakers pursue a strategy to increase the use of PD among ESRD patients.