A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility-Based Quality of Life in Chronic Kidney Disease Treatments

English version České info

Background:
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common and costly condition to treat. Economic evaluations of health care often incorporate patient preferences for health outcomes using utilities. The objective of this study was to determine pooled utility-based quality of life (the numerical value attached to the strength of an individual's preference for a specific health outcome) by CKD treatment modality.

Methods and Findings:
We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of peer-reviewed published articles and of PhD dissertations published through 1 December 2010 that reported utility-based quality of life (utility) for adults with late-stage CKD. Studies reporting utilities by proxy (e.g., reported by a patient's doctor or family member) were excluded.

In total, 190 studies reporting 326 utilities from over 56,000 patients were analysed. There were 25 utilities from pre-treatment CKD patients, 226 from dialysis patients (haemodialysis, n = 163; peritoneal dialysis, n = 44), 66 from kidney transplant patients, and three from patients treated with non-dialytic conservative care. Using time tradeoff as a referent instrument, kidney transplant recipients had a mean utility of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.90). The mean utility was comparable in pre-treatment CKD patients (difference = −0.02; 95% CI: −0.09, 0.04), 0.11 lower in dialysis patients (95% CI: −0.15, −0.08), and 0.2 lower in conservative care patients (95% CI: −0.38, −0.01). Patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis had a significantly higher mean utility (0.80) than those on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (0.72; p = 0.02). The mean utility of transplant patients increased over time, from 0.66 in the 1980s to 0.85 in the 2000s, an increase of 0.19 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.26). Utility varied by elicitation instrument, with standard gamble producing the highest estimates, and the SF-6D by Brazier et al., University of Sheffield, producing the lowest estimates. The main limitations of this study were that treatment assignments were not random, that only transplant had longitudinal data available, and that we calculated EuroQol Group EQ-5D scores from SF-36 and SF-12 health survey data, and therefore the algorithms may not reflect EQ-5D scores measured directly.

Conclusions:
For patients with late-stage CKD, treatment with dialysis is associated with a significant decrement in quality of life compared to treatment with kidney transplantation. These findings provide evidence-based utility estimates to inform economic evaluations of kidney therapies, useful for policy makers and in individual treatment discussions with CKD patients.

Vyšlo v časopise: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility-Based Quality of Life in Chronic Kidney Disease Treatments. PLoS Med 9(9): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. United States Renal Data System (2011) Atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States: 2011 annual data report. Bethesda (Maryland): National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

2. AhmedA, RoderickP, WardM, SteenkampR, BurdenR, et al. (2006) Current chronic kidney disease practice patterns in the UK: a national survey. QJM 99: 245–251.

3. AnsellD, FeehallyJ, FogartyD, InwardC, ThomsonC, et al. (2010) UK Renal Registry 2009: 12th annual report of the Renal Association. Nephron Clin Pract 115(Suppl 1).

4. van de LuijtgaardenM, NoordzijM, WannerC, JagerK (2012) Renal replacement therapy in Europe—a summary of the 2009 ERA–EDTA Registry annual report. Clin Kidney J 5: 109–119.

5. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O'Brien M, Stoddart G (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6. DrummondM (2001) Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 33: 344–349.

7. LiemYS, BoschJL, ArendsLR, Heijenbrok-KalMH, HuninkMGM (2007) Quality of life assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health 10: 390–397.

8. LiemYS, BoschJL, HuninkM (2008) Preference-based quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health 11: 733–741.

9. MossAH (2010) Revised dialysis clinical practice guideline promotes more informed decision-making. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 2380–2383.

10. AraR, BrazierJ (2008) Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health 11: 1131–1143.

11. LawrenceW, FleishmanJ (2004) Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 24: 160–169.

12. BerlinJ (1997) Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet 350: 185–186.

13. RoystonP, AmblerG, SauerbreiW (1999) The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 28: 964–974.

14. HedgesL, TiptonE, JohnsonM (2010) Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synthesis Methods 1: 39–65.

15. Murtagh F (2008) Understanding and improving quality of care for people with conservatively-managed stage 5 chronic kidney disease—the course of symptoms and other concerns over time [PhD dissertation]. London: Department of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London.

16. LeeAJ, MorganCL, ConwayP, CurrieCJ (2005) Characterisation and comparison of health-related quality of life for patients with renal failure. Curr Med Res Opin 21: 1777–1783.

17. MannsBJ, JohnsonJA, TaubK, MortisG, GhaliWA, et al. (2002) Dialysis adequacy and health related quality of life in hemodialysis patients. ASAIO J 48: 565–569.

18. MannsB, MeltzerD, TaubK, DonaldsonC (2003) Illustrating the impact of including future costs in economic evaluations: an application to end-stage renal disease care. Health Econ 12: 949–958.

19. MannsB, KlarenbachS, LeeH, CulletonB, ShriveF, et al. (2007) Economic evaluation of sevelamer in patients with end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 2867–2878.

20. BalaskaA, MoustafellosP, GourgiotisS, PistolasD, HadjiyannakisE, et al. (2006) Changes in health-related quality of life in Greek adult patients 1 year after successful renal transplantation. Exp Clin Transplant 4: 521–524.

21. LaupacisA, KeownP, PusN, KruegerH, FergusonB, et al. (1996) A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int 50: 235–242.

22. OberbauerR, HutchisonB, ErisJ, AriasM, ClaessonK, et al. (2003) Health-related quality-of-life outcomes of sirolimus-treated kidney transplant patients after elimination of cyclosporine A: results of a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Transplantation 75: 1277–1285.

23. PainterPL, ToppKS, KrasnoffJB, AdeyD, StrasnerA, et al. (2003) Health-related fitness and quality of life following steroid withdrawal in renal transplant recipients. Kidney Int 63: 2309–2316.

24. Perez San GregorioMA, Martin RodriguezA, Diaz DominguezR, Perez BernalJ (2007) [Health related quality of life evolution in kidney transplanted patients.]. Nefrologia 27: 619–626.

25. PinsonCW, FeurerID, PayneJL, WisePE, ShockleyS, et al. (2000) Health-related quality of life after different types of solid organ transplantation. Ann Surg 232: 597–607.

26. RavagnaniLMB, DomingosNAM, de Oliveira Santos MiyazakiMC (2007) [Quality of life and coping strategies in patients undergoing renal transplantation.]. Estud Psicol 12: 177–184.

27. RodriguezAM, San GregorioM, DominguezRD, BernalJP (2008) [Differences in health-related quality of life between kidney, heart and liver transplant patients during transplantation process.]. Psicol Conductual Rev Int Psicol Clin Salud 16: 103–117.

28. RussellJD, BeecroftML, LudwinD, ChurchillDN (1992) The quality of life in renal transplantation—a prospective study. Transplantation 54: 656–660.