Cost Effectiveness of Dialysis Modalities: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

  • Martin Howell
  • Rachael C. Walker
  • Kirsten HowardEmail author
Systematic Review


Background and Objective

The economic burden of providing maintenance dialysis to those with end-stage kidney disease continues to increase. Home dialysis, including both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, is commonly assumed to be more cost effective than facility dialysis, with some countries adopting a home-first policy in an attempt to reduce costs. However, the cost effectiveness of this approach is uncertain. The aim of this study is to review all published cost-effectiveness analyses comparing all alternative dialysis modalities for people with end-stage kidney disease.


We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment Database from the Centre of Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library and Econlit from January 2000 to December 2017. Published economic evaluations were included if they provided comparative information on the costs and health outcomes of alternative dialysis modalities.


The review identified 16 economic evaluations comparing dialysis modalities from both high- and low-income countries. The majority (69%) were undertaken solely from the perspective of the payer or service provider, 14 (88%) included a cost-utility analysis and eight (50%) were modelled evaluations. The studies addressed costs and health outcomes of multiple dialysis modalities, with many reporting average cost effectiveness rather than incremental cost effectiveness. Almost all evaluations suggest home dialysis to be less costly and to offer comparable or better health outcomes than in-centre haemodialysis. However, the quality-of-life benefit for each modality was poorly defined and inconsistent in terms of magnitude and direction of differences between modalities and across studies. Other issues include exclusion of competing modalities and use of arbitrary assumptions with regard to the mix of modalities.


The ability to identify the mix of dialysis modalities that provides best outcomes for patients and health budgets is uncertain particularly given the lack of societal perspectives and inconsistencies between published studies.


Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the development of this study. MH led the literature search. MH and RCW assessed studies for full-text review. All authors reviewed the full-text articles to check for inclusion in the review. MH and RCW extracted data from the included studies and reviewed reporting against CHEERS. KH provided clarification and adjudication in areas of uncertain interpretation. All authors were actively involved in writing and editing drafts of the manuscript and interpretation of the results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


No funding was received for the preparation of this study. Martin Howell is funded by the Better Evidence and Translation in Chronic Kidney Disease (BEAT-CKD) National Health and Medical Research Council Program Grant (1092957).

Conflict of interest

Martin Howell, Rachael C. Walker and Kirsten Howard have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this article.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

Supplementary material

40258_2018_455_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. 1.
    Jha V, Garcia-Garcia G, Iseki K, Li Z, Naicker S, Plattner B, et al. Chronic kidney disease: global dimension and perspectives. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):260–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2095–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    White SL, Chadban SJ, Jan S, Chapman JR, Cass A. How can we achieve global equity in provision of renal replacement therapy? Bull World Health Org. 2008;86(3):229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    United States Renal Data System. 2015 annual data report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. International comparisons. Bethesda (MD): United States Renal Data System; 2016.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li PK-T, Chow KM. Peritoneal dialysis-first policy made successful: perspectives and actions. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;62(5):993–1005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu AW-Y, Chau K-F, Ho Y-W, Li PK-T. Development of the “peritoneal dialysis first” model in Hong Kong. Perit Dial Int. 2007;27(Suppl. 2):S53–5.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walker R, Marshall M, Morton RL, McFarlane P, Howard K. The cost effectiveness of contemporary home haemodialysis modalities compared to facility haemodialysis: a systematic review of full economic evaluations. Nephrology. 2014;19(8):459–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mowatt G, Vale L, MacLeod A. Systematic review of the effectiveness of home versus hospital or satellite unit hemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(3):258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Afiatin, Khoe LC, Kristin E, Masytoh LS, Herlinawaty E, Werayingyong P, et al. Economic evaluation of policy options for dialysis in end-stage renal disease patients under the universal health coverage in Indonesia. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0177436.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beby AT, Cornelis T, Zinck R, Liu FX. Cost-effectiveness of high dose hemodialysis in comparison to conventional in-center hemodialysis in the Netherlands. Adv Ther. 2016;33(11):2032–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalez-Perez JG, Vale L, Stearns SC, Wordsworth S. Hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment-options. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(1):32–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Wit GA, Ramsteijn PG, de Charro FT. Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment. Health Policy. 1998;44(3):215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haller M, Gutjahr G, Kramar R, Harnoncourt F, Oberbauer R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of renal replacement therapy in Austria. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2011;26(9):2988–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hooi LS, Lim TO, Goh A, Wong HS, Tan CC, Ahmad G, et al. Economic evaluation of centre haemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Ministry of Health hospitals, Malaysia. Nephrology. 2005;10(1):25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howard K, Salkeld G, White S, McDonald S, Chadban S, Craig JC, et al. The cost-effectiveness of increasing kidney transplantation and home-based dialysis. Nephrology. 2009;14(1):123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klarenbach S, Tonelli M, Pauly R, Walsh M, Culleton B, So H, et al. Economic evaluation of frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis based on a randomized controlled trial. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25(3):587–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kontodimopoulos N, Niakas D. An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients’ life expectancy. Health Policy. 2008;86(1):85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kroeker A, Clark WF, Heidenheim AP, Kuenzig L, Leitch R, Meyette M, et al. An operating cost comparison between conventional and home quotidian hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;42(1 Suppl.):49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu FX, Treharne C, Arici M, Crowe L, Culleton B. High-dose hemodialysis versus conventional in-center hemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective. Value Health. 2015;18(1):17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    European Renal Association (ERA) and European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EDTA). ERA-EDTA Registry annual report 2011. Available from: Accessed Nov 2013.
  23. 23.
    Liem YS, Bosch JL, Myriam Hunink M. Preference-based quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health. 2008;11(4):733–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malmstrom RK, Roine RP, Heikkila A, Rasanen P, Sintonen H, Muroma-Karttunen R, et al. Cost analysis and health-related quality of life of home and self-care satellite haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2008;23(6):1990–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McFarlane PA, Bayoumi AM, Pierratos A, Redelmeier DA. The quality of life and cost utility of home nocturnal and conventional in-center hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 2003;64(3):1004–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pike E, Hamidi V, Ringerike T, Wisloff T, Klemp M. More use of peritoneal dialysis gives significant savings: a systematic review and health economic decision model. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(2):104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salonen T, Reina T, Oksa H, Rissanen P, Pasternack A. Alternative strategies to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007;39(1):289–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Treharne C, Liu FX, Arici M, Crowe L, Farooqui U. Peritoneal dialysis and in-centre haemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(4):409–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang F, Lau T, Luo N. Cost-effectiveness of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis for patients with end-stage renal disease in Singapore. Nephrology. 2016;21(8):669–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A, Howard K, Webster AC. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Just PM, de Charro FT, Tschosik EA, Noe LL, Bhattacharyya SK, Riella MC. Reimbursement and economic factors influencing dialysis modality choice around the world. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(7):2365–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Souqiyyeh MZ, Al-Attar MBA, Zakaria H, Shaheen FA. Dialysis centers in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2001;12(3):293.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rizk R, Hiligsmann M, Karavetian M, Salameh P, Evers SM. A societal cost-of-illness study of hemodialysis in Lebanon. J Med Econ. 2016;19(12):1157–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Amstel SP, Noordzij M, Warady BA, Cano F, Craig JC, Groothoff JW, et al. Renal replacement therapy for children throughout the world: the need for a global registry. Pediatr Nephrol. 2018;33(5):863–71.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Culleton BF, Walsh M, Klarenbach SW, Mortis G, Scott-Douglas N, Quinn RR, et al. Effect of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis on left ventricular mass and quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298(11):1291–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N, Krueger H, Ferguson B, Wong C, et al. A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int. 1996;50(1):235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sennfalt K, Magnusson M, Carlsson P. Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: a cost-utility analysis. Perit Dial Int. 2002;22(1):39–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and HealthUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Eastern Institute of TechnologyNapierNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations