A health economic evaluation of the multinational, randomized controlled CONVINCE trial - cost-utility of high-dose online hemodiafiltration compared to high-flux hemodialysis.

Abstract

High-flux hemodialysis (HD) and high-dose hemodiafiltration (HDF) are established treatments for patients with kidney failure. Since HDF has been associated with improved survival rates compared to HD, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HDF compared to HD. Cost–utility analyses were performed from a societal perspective alongside the multinational randomized controlled CONVINCE trial. A Markov cohort model was used to extrapolate results to a lifetime time horizon. Costs of dialysis sessions were based on published data, with two scenarios reflecting different estimates for costs of dialysis staff. Other healthcare resource use, productivity losses and quality of life were collected in the electronic case report form or by country-adapted, self-reported questionnaires. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In the two-year trial-based analysis, HDF was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and higher costs, with incremental costs per QALY (ICER) of €31,898 and €37,344, depending on dialysis staff costs. The lifetime Markov cohort model resulted in ICERs of €27,068 and €36,751. Compared to HD, HDF resulted in an additional year in perfect health at increased costs. Sensitivity analyses of the lifetime analyses showed the probability of cost-effectiveness was more than 90% at willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY. The ICER was €13,231 when excluding all costs in additional life years. The probability of cost-effectiveness was mainly driven by costs due to additional dialysis sessions in life years gained, and not due to additional costs per dialysis session. As costs may differ between countries and centers, we recommend translating our results to local settings.