PDI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Perit Dial Int 27(3): 359-363 2007
© 2007 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pacheco, A.
Right arrow Articles by Sciaraffia, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pacheco, A.
Right arrow Articles by Sciaraffia, V.

PERITONEAL DIALYSIS IN LATIN AMERICA

COST/UTILITY STUDY OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS AND HEMODIALYSIS IN CHILE

Alejandro Pacheco1, Antonio Saffie1, Rubén Torres1, Cristian Tortella2, Cristian Llanos2, Daniel Vargas2 and Vito Sciaraffia2

1 Nephrology Section, Department of Medicine, University of Chile Clinical Hospital;2 Health Administration Institute, Faculty of Economy and Business, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

Correspondence to: A. Pacheco, Nephrology Section, University of Chile Clinical Hospital, Santos Dumont 999, 4° piso sector E, Independencia, Santiago, 838-0456 Chile.
apacheco{at}redclinicauchile.cl

In Chile the reimbursement/patient/year for chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) is US$14,654 and for chronic hemodialysis (HD) US$10,909. However, no study comparing global (direct plus indirect) costs has been performed in our country. Our research objective was to compare global costs and quality of life between the two therapies.

Patients (n = 159) from five selected dialysis units in Chile [57 patients on PD (50 on automated PD) and 102 on standard HD (3 x 4 hours weekly)] were retrospectively studied. No patient had previously received the alternate therapy. Items analyzed were quality of life, customer satisfaction, direct and indirect costs, annual global costs, and cost/utility index. Mean age on HD was 54.14 ± 16.01 years and on PD 49.76 ± 18.88 years (p > 0.05). No differences in the distribution of diabetic patients between the therapies were found. Hemodialysis and PD groups did not have differences in the quality of life index, although there was better customer satisfaction with PD than with HD. Direct and indirect costs were calculated. We found significant differences in favor of PD in erythropoietin consumption (2.24 ± 1.57 vials/week on HD and 1.35 ± 0.85 vials/week on PD, p < 0.05) and working time (31.0 ± 13.3 hours/week on HD and 38.5 ± 12.2 hours/week on PD, p < 0.05). The quality life index (Health-Related SF-36 Health Survey) was 65.75 on HD and 66.88 on PD. Annual global costs were US$20,803 for HD and US$20,742 for PD. The cost/utility index was 3.16 for HD and 3.10 for PD. Patients on PD have an advantage related to erythropoietin consumption and working capacity compared with HD patients. Addition of related indirect costs to reimbursements gives a more accurate insight into treatment costs. Considering all these parameters, we did not find significant differences between HD and PD in quality life index, cost/utility index, or annual global cost in this Chilean end-stage renal disease population.

KEY WORDS: KEY WORDS:; Hemodialysis; quality of life; cost-effectiveness; cost/utility; health economics.

Received 8 January 2007; accepted 23 February 2007.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Multimed Inc. logo
Copyright © 2007 by Multimed Inc.