Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T06:53:16.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Treatment of End-Stage Renal Disease in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Ricardo Sesso ,
John M. Eisenberg ,
Carlos Stabile ,
Sergio Draibe ,
Horacio Ajzen  and
Oswaldo Ramos
Ricardo Sesso
Affiliation:
Escola Paulista de Medicina
John M. Eisenberg
Affiliation:
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Carlos Stabile
Affiliation:
Escola Paulista de Medicina
Sergio Draibe
Affiliation:
Escola Paulista de Medicina
Horacio Ajzen
Affiliation:
Escola Paulista de Medicina
Oswaldo Ramos
Affiliation:
Escola Paulista de Medicina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cost-effectiveness analysis compared four treatments of end-stage renal disease in Brazil: continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), in-center hemodialysis (HD), cadaver donor transplantation (CD-Tx), and living related donor transplantation (LR-Tx). After 2 years, the costs per year of survival were CAPD, $12,134; HO, $10,065; CO-Tx, $6,978; and LR-Tx, $3,022. The HD cost was lower than CAPO partially because of the reuse of hemodialyzers in Brazil. Although less cost-effective, both dialysis treatments yielded more years of survival after 2 years. This analysis reveals a trade-off between cost per year of survival and years of survival.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 107 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bland, L., Alter, M., Favero, M. et al. , Hemodialyzer reuse: Practices in the United States and implication for infection control. Thansaction – American Society for Artificial Internal Organs, 1985, 31, 556–58.Google ScholarPubMed
Bulgin, R. H.Comparative costs of various dialysis treatments. Peritoneal Dialysis Bulletin, 1981, 1, 88–91.Google Scholar
Churchill, D. N., Lemon, B. C., & Torrance, G. W.Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis to hospital hemodialysis. Medical Decision Making, 1984, 4, 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dados do Instituto Nacional de Assistencia Medica da Previdencia Social, No. 9. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: INAMPS-Secretaria do Planejamento, 1986, 2–20.Google Scholar
Diario Oficial da Republica Federativa do Brasil, No. 174. Brasilia, DF, 1986, 13706–23.Google Scholar
Evans, R. W., Manninen, D. L., Garrison, L. P. Jr, et al. The quality of life of patients with end-stage renal disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312, 553–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffstein, P. A., Krueger, K. K., & Wineman, R. J.Dialysis costs: Results of a diverse sample study. Kidney International, 1976, 9, 286–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaye, M., Lella, J., Ganon, R., & Low, G.Consent to dialyzer reuse: Is it ethically necessary? American Journal of Nephrology, 1985, 5, 138–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krakauer, H., Grauman, J. S., McMullan, M. R., & Creede, C. C.The recent U.S. experience in the treatment of end-stage renal disease by dialysis and transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 308, 1558–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludbrook, A.A cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of chronic renal failure. Applied Economics, 1981, 13, 337–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolph, K. D., Cutler, S. J., Steinberg, S. M., & Novak, J. W.Continuous ambulatory pentoneal dialysis in the United States: A three-year study. Kidney International, 1985, 28, 198–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolph, K. D.Comparison of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis. Kidney International, 1988, 14 (suppl.): Sl23–31.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. D., Maxwell, D. R., & Gross, T. L.Cost-effective care of end-stage renal disease: A billion dollar question. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1980, 92, 243–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozenbaum, E. A., Pliskin, J. S., Barnoon, S., & Chaimovitz, C.Comparative study of costs and quality of life of chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients in Israel. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences. 1985, 12, 335–39.Google Scholar
Shepard, D. S., & Thompson, M. S.First principles of cost-effectiveness analysis in health. Public Health Reports, 1979, 94, 535–43.Google ScholarPubMed
Stange, P. V., & Sumner, A. T.Predicting treatment cost and life expectancy for end-stage renal disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1978, 298, 372–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Canadian Multicenter Transplant Study Group. A randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. Analysis at three years. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 314, 1219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, M. C., & Stetson, W. B.Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 716–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wing, A. J., Broyer, M., Brunner, F. P. et al. , Combined report on regular dialysis and transplantation in Europe, XV, 1984, presented at the XXIInd Congress of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, Brussels, 06 1985.Google Scholar