In Denmark kidney transplantation is more cost-effective than dialysis

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 5,000 Danish patients are being treated for end-stage renal disease, for which the two treatment options are dialysis and transplantation. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of kidney transplantation versus dialysis from a public health-care perspective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a decision analytic model. The model was designed as a Markov model in which all relevant costs and effects of the two alternative treatments were included. Deterministic data were used alongside the best available evidence from the literature. To estimate the overall uncertainty concerning the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), a probabilistic sensitivity analysis with
second-order Monte Carlo simulations was carried out on a
hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients.

RESULTS

The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 1,032,934 DKK for dialysis compared with 810,516 DKK for transplantation. When comparing kidney transplantation with dialysis, kidney transplantation was cost-saving and resulted in additional QALYs. When taking the overall uncertainty associated with the ICER into account, an incremental cost-effectiveness scatter plot supported that transplantation was dominating and that the results were robust. In addition, a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that transplantation had a 99.93% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay value of 0 DKK.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness ratio was favourable for kidney transplantation when compared with dialysis. In view of this, it was concluded that transplantation is preferable to dialysis when treating patients with end-stage renal disease.

FUNDING

Not relevant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not relevant.

CORRESPONDENCE: Cathrine Elgaard Jensen. E-mail: celga@business.aau.dk

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at www.danmedj.dk.

REFERENCE: Dan Med J 2014;61(3):A4796