CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT03474367Updated Oct 2, 2019

Cost-effectiveness of Urgent-start Therapies Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis

An observational study in Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Requiring Chronic Dialysis, sponsored by Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho. Status unknown at 1 site in Brazil. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-10-02.

Sponsored by Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho · Observational

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Sep 2019), so the status shown — last known as Active, not recruiting — may be out of date.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
198
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of unplanned dialysis (peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) during the first year of therapy in a single center.

Read the detailed description

Despite evidence of worse outcomes, initiation of renal replacement therapy by unplanned modalities in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is the reality in the practice for both hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Unplanned therapy peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the initiation of the modality in less than 48 hours after implantation of the peritoneal catheter, without family training or adequacy of the home. Unplanned hemodialysis (HD) is the initiation of the method without a functional arteriovenous fistula, i.e., with a central venous catheter (nontunneled or tunneled).

Growing evidence shows unplanned PD (or urgent start PD) as a viable and safe alternative to unplanned HD, with the similar rates of infection and survival.

On planned scenario, solid studies demonstrate that PD has a better cost-effectiveness when compared to HD, however the literature lacks in this kind of analysis in unplanned methods.

Briefly, the workgroup will follow patients that would anyway start a Renal Replacement Therapy by an unplanned method and register Government payment for the therapy, including the therapy direct costs and the costs with events (internation, infection), access for dialysis, laboratory and CKD specific medications to performed a cost-effectiveness analysis in both groups (Unplanned Hemodialysis and Unplanned Peritoneal Dialysis).

The workgroup is responsible for the placement of the catheters (PD and HD) using the Seldinger Technique.

The study is unicentric, the therapy is continuous and necessary for the maintenance of life; therefore, no great difficult in the follow up is expected. A database with up-to-date information of patients will be functional during the study.

A Markov model will be developed to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of different dialysis modality distribution scenarios versus current practice. The model considers a hypothetical adult incident patient cohort with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis and adopts payer perspective. Markov models have been used to model dialysis treatment in previous economic analyses and are widely accepted to be suitable for modelling chronic condition

Statistical analysis plan:

From the study protocol, the data will be entered in a spreadsheet and verified typographical errors and their analysis will be performed using the statistical program Statistical Analysis System (SAS) for Windows (version 9.2: SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA, 2012).

Considering an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta error of 0.2, power of statistic test of 0.8 and cost difference detection between groups of 15%, the calculated sample size for each group is 94 patients.

Initially descriptive analysis will be done for all patients treated in the period, calculated measures of central tendency and dispersion for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables.

For the analysis of repeated measures, asymmetric distribution (gamma) under the Generalized Linear Model (GENMOD) procedure will be used.

Chi Square will be used to compare categorical variable between the two groups. T test or Mann-Whitney will be used to compare parametric continue variables.

By the utilization of Kaplan Meyer and log rank, survival curves of the two groups will be presented at the end of the study. A p-value of 5% or lower will be considered to be statistically significant

02

Conditions studied

  • Cost-effectiveness Analysis
  • Chronic Kidney Disease Requiring Chronic Dialysis

Keywords

  • Unplanned Peritoneal Dialysis
  • Unplanned Hemodialysis
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Dialysis
  • Peritoneal Dialysis
  • Hemodialysis
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Incident dialysis patients.

Inclusion criteria

  • Ambulatorial Chronic Kidney Disease patients stage 5 (eGFR \< 15 ml/min) or stages 4 with abrupt worsening requiring dialysis treatment immediately followed or not by nephrologists prior to Renal Replacement Therapy indication.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Transitions between HD and PD
  • Patients with functional arteriovenous fistula entering hemodialysis
  • Patients with functional PD access implanted ate least 48h before the first use
  • Patient or family trained in PD and/or with the right adequacy of the home
04

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
198 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Unplanned Peritoneal Dialysis

    CKD patients stage 5 (eGFR \< 15 ml/min/1,73m²) or stages 4 with abrupt worsening renal function requiring dialysis treatment immediately, followed or not by nephrologists prior to renal replacement therapy (RRT) indication, that agree to initiate peritoneal dialysis (PD) in less than 48 hours after implantation of the peritoneal catheter, without family training or adequacy of the home. The patient must not have any absolute contraindications to initiate PD, which include: presence of recent abdominal surgery (less than 30 days); multiple previous abdominal surgery (more than two); presence of fibrosis or peritoneal adhesions; fungal peritonitis; severe respiratory insufficiency (FiO2\> 70%); abdominal infections; severe hyperkalemia with changes characteristic in ECG; and acute pulmonary edema. These patients will be treated with HD.

  • Unplanned Hemodialysis

    CKD patients stage 5 (eGFR \< 15 ml/min/1,73m²) or stages 4 with abrupt worsening renal function requiring dialysis treatment immediately, followed or not by nephrologists prior to renal replacement therapy (RRT) indication, that agree to initiate HD without a functional arteriovenous fistula, ie, with a central venous catheter (nontunneled or tunneled).

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Cost effectiveness analysis of unplanned PD and HD at the General Hospital of the School of Medicine of Botucatu (HC-FMB)

    Cost effectiveness analysis of unplanned PD and HD with the data collected at our center

    Time frame: 12 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Cost effectiveness analysis of unplanned PD and HD in national and international scenario

    Transpose the cost-effectiveness analysis to a national and international scenario, using a Markov model

    Time frame: 12 months

06

Study locations

1 site
  • Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu
    Botucatu, São Paulo 18606-260, Brazil
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Woo KT, Choong HL, Wong KS, Tan HB, Chan CM. The contribution of chronic kidney disease to the global burden of major noncommunicable diseases. Kidney Int. 2012 May;81(10):1044-1045. doi: 10.1038/ki.2012.39. No abstract available. PubMed 22543907 ↗
  • Eggers PW. Has the incidence of end-stage renal disease in the USA and other countries stabilized? Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2011 May;20(3):241-5. doi: 10.1097/MNH.0b013e3283454319. PubMed 21422925 ↗
  • Klarenbach SW, Tonelli M, Chui B, Manns BJ. Economic evaluation of dialysis therapies. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2014 Nov;10(11):644-52. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2014.145. Epub 2014 Aug 26. PubMed 25157840 ↗
  • Haller M, Gutjahr G, Kramar R, Harnoncourt F, Oberbauer R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of renal replacement therapy in Austria. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011 Sep;26(9):2988-95. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq780. Epub 2011 Feb 10. PubMed 21310740 ↗
  • Howard K, Salkeld G, White S, McDonald S, Chadban S, Craig JC, Cass A. The cost-effectiveness of increasing kidney transplantation and home-based dialysis. Nephrology (Carlton). 2009 Feb;14(1):123-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2008.01073.x. PubMed 19207859 ↗
  • Korevaar JC, Feith GW, Dekker FW, van Manen JG, Boeschoten EW, Bossuyt PM, Krediet RT; NECOSAD Study Group. Effect of starting with hemodialysis compared with peritoneal dialysis in patients new on dialysis treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Kidney Int. 2003 Dec;64(6):2222-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00321.x. PubMed 14633146 ↗
  • Vonesh EF, Snyder JJ, Foley RN, Collins AJ. Mortality studies comparing peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: what do they tell us? Kidney Int Suppl. 2006 Nov;(103):S3-11. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5001910. PubMed 17080109 ↗
  • Perl J, Wald R, McFarlane P, Bargman JM, Vonesh E, Na Y, Jassal SV, Moist L. Hemodialysis vascular access modifies the association between dialysis modality and survival. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011 Jun;22(6):1113-21. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2010111155. Epub 2011 Apr 21. PubMed 21511830 ↗
  • Heaf JG, Lokkegaard H, Madsen M. Initial survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis relative to haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2002 Jan;17(1):112-7. doi: 10.1093/ndt/17.1.112. PubMed 11773473 ↗
  • Termorshuizen F, Korevaar JC, Dekker FW, Van Manen JG, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT; Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis Study Group. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: comparison of adjusted mortality rates according to the duration of dialysis: analysis of The Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis 2. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003 Nov;14(11):2851-60. doi: 10.1097/01.asn.0000091585.45723.9e. PubMed 14569095 ↗
  • Dias DB, Banin V, Mendes ML, Barretti P, Ponce D. Peritoneal dialysis can be an option for unplanned chronic dialysis: initial results from a developing country. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016 Jun;48(6):901-6. doi: 10.1007/s11255-016-1243-x. Epub 2016 Feb 20. PubMed 26897038 ↗
  • Silva TN, de Marchi D, Mendes ML, Barretti P, Ponce D. Approach to prophylactic measures for central venous catheter-related infections in hemodialysis: a critical review. Hemodial Int. 2014 Jan;18(1):15-23. doi: 10.1111/hdi.12071. Epub 2013 Aug 14. PubMed 23944971 ↗
  • Mendes ML, Castro JH, Silva TN, Barretti P, Ponce D. Effective use of alteplase for occluded tunneled venous catheter in hemodialysis patients. Artif Organs. 2014 May;38(5):399-403. doi: 10.1111/aor.12186. Epub 2013 Oct 3. PubMed 24117542 ↗
  • Koch M, Kohnle M, Trapp R, Haastert B, Rump LC, Aker S. Comparable outcome of acute unplanned peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Jan;27(1):375-80. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr262. Epub 2011 May 28. PubMed 21622993 ↗
  • Lobbedez T, Lecouf A, Ficheux M, Henri P, Hurault de Ligny B, Ryckelynck JP. Is rapid initiation of peritoneal dialysis feasible in unplanned dialysis patients? A single-centre experience. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008 Oct;23(10):3290-4. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfn213. Epub 2008 Apr 19. PubMed 18424817 ↗
  • Alkatheeri AM, Blake PG, Gray D, Jain AK. Success of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Canadian Renal Program. Perit Dial Int. 2016 Mar-Apr;36(2):171-6. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2014.00148. Epub 2015 Sep 15. PubMed 26374834 ↗
  • Povlsen JV. Unplanned start on assisted peritoneal dialysis. Contrib Nephrol. 2009;163:261-263. doi: 10.1159/000223808. Epub 2009 Jun 3. PubMed 19494623 ↗
  • Chang YT, Hwang JS, Hung SY, Tsai MS, Wu JL, Sung JM, Wang JD. Cost-effectiveness of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: A national cohort study with 14 years follow-up and matched for comorbidities and propensity score. Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 27;6:30266. doi: 10.1038/srep30266. PubMed 27461186 ↗
  • Atapour A, Eshaghian A, Taheri D, Dolatkhah S. Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis, which is cost-effective? Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2015 Sep;26(5):962-5. doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.164578. PubMed 26354569 ↗
  • Liu FX, Ghaffari A, Dhatt H, Kumar V, Balsera C, Wallace E, Khairullah Q, Lesher B, Gao X, Henderson H, LaFleur P, Delgado EM, Alvarez MM, Hartley J, McClernon M, Walton S, Guest S. Economic evaluation of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus urgent-start hemodialysis in the United States. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014 Dec;93(28):e293. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000293. PubMed 25526471 ↗
  • Passadakis PS, Oreopoulos DG. Peritoneal dialysis in patients with acute renal failure. Adv Perit Dial. 2007;23:7-16. PubMed 17886595 ↗
  • Mowatt G, Vale L, Perez J, Wyness L, Fraser C, MacLeod A, Daly C, Stearns SC. Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of home versus hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(2):1-174. doi: 10.3310/hta7020. No abstract available. PubMed 12773260 ↗
  • Kirby L, Vale L. Dialysis for end-stage renal disease. Determining a cost-effective approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001 Spring;17(2):181-9. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300105045. PubMed 11446130 ↗
  • Htay H, Johnson DW, Craig JC, Teixeira-Pinto A, Hawley CM, Cho Y. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people with chronic kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 27;1(1):CD012899. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012899.pub2. PubMed 33501650 ↗
  • Htay H, Johnson DW, Craig JC, Teixeira-Pinto A, Hawley CM, Cho Y. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus conventional-start peritoneal dialysis for people with chronic kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 15;12(12):CD012913. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012913.pub2. PubMed 33320346 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03474367
Lead sponsor
Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho
Responsible party
Alexandre Minetto Brabo (Mastering Student, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 22, 2018
Start date
Apr 1, 2017
Primary completion
Mar 12, 2020 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 12, 2021 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 2, 2019

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Sep 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion