Search

Rationale & Objective: To what degree and how patient navigators improve clinical outcomes for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and kidney failure is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to summarize patient navigator program design, evidence, and implementation in kidney disease. Study Design: A search strategy was developed for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluated the impact of navigators on outcomes in the setting of CKD and kidney failure. Articles were identified from various databases. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and identified those meeting the inclusion criteria. Setting & Participants: Patients with CKD or kidney failure (in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, home hemodialysis, or kidney transplantation). Selection Criteria for Studies: Studies that compared patient navigators with a control, without limits on size, duration, setting, or language. Studies focusing solely on patient education were excluded. Data Extraction: Data were abstracted from full texts and risk of bias was assessed. Analytical Approach: No meta-analysis was performed. Results: Of 3,371 citations, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria including 14 original studies. Navigators came from various healthcare backgrounds including nursing (n=6), social worker (n=2), medical interpreter (n=1), research (n=1), and also included kidney transplant recipients (n=2) and non-medical individuals (n=2). Navigators focused mostly on education (n=9) and support (n = 6). Navigators were used for patients with CKD (n=5), peritoneal dialysis (n=2), in-center hemodialysis (n=4), kidney transplantation (n=2), but not home hemodialysis. Navigators improved transplant workup and listing, peritoneal dialysis utilization, and patient knowledge. Limitations: Many studies did not show benefits across other outcomes, were at a high risk of bias, and none reported cost-effectiveness or patient-reported experience measures. Conclusions: Navigators improve some health outcomes for CKD but there was heterogeneity in their structure and function. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate navigator program efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Rationale & Objective: The prevalence of kidney failure is increasing globally. Most of these patients will require life-sustaining dialysis at a substantial cost to the health care system. Assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) and assisted home hemodialysis (HD) are potential alternatives to in-center HD and have demonstrated equivalent outcomes with respect to mortality and morbidity. We aim to describe the costs associated with assisted continuous cycling PD (CCPD) and assisted home HD. Study Design: Cost minimization model. Setting & Population: Adult incident maintenance dialysis patients in Manitoba, Canada. Intervention: Full- and partial-assist home HD and CCPD. Full-assist modalities were defined as nurse-assisted dialysis setup and takedown performed by a health care aide, whereas partial-assist modalities only included nurse-assisted setup. Additionally, full-assist home HD was evaluated under a complete care scenario with the inclusion of a health care aide remaining with the patient throughout the duration of treatment. Outcomes: Annual per-patient maintenance and training costs related to assisted and self-care home HD and CCPD, presented in 2019 Canadian dollars. Model, Perspective, & Time Frame: This model took the perspective of the Canadian public health payer using a 1-year time frame. Results: Annual total per-patient maintenance (and training) costs by modality were the following: full-assist CCPD, $75.717 (initial training costs, $301); partial-assist CCPD, $67,765 ($4,385); full-assist home HD, $47,862 ($301); partial-assist home HD, $44,650 ($14,813); and full-assist home HD (complete care), $64,659 ($301). Limitations: This model did not account for costs taken from the societal perspective or costs related to PD failure and modality switching. Additionally, this analysis reflects only costs experienced by a single center. Conclusions: Assisted home-based dialysis modalities are viable treatment options for patients from a cost perspective. Future studies to consider graduation rates to full self-care from assisted dialysis and the cost implications of respite care are needed.

Rationale & Objective: The kidney failure population is growing, necessitating the expansion of dialysis programs. These programs are costly and require a substantial amount of health care resources. Tools that accurately forecast resource use can aid efficient allocation. The objective of this study is to describe the development of an economic simulation model that incorporates treatment history and detailed modality transitions for patients with kidney disease using real-world data to estimate associated costs, utility, and survival by initiating modality. Study Design: Cost-utility model with microsimulation. Setting & Population: Adult incident maintenance dialysis patients in Canada who initiated facility-based hemodialysis (HD) or home peritoneal dialysis (PD) between 2004 and 2013. Intervention: HD and PD. Outcomes: Costs (related to dialysis, transplantation, infections, and hospitalizations), survival, utility, and dialysis modality mix over time. Model, Perspective, & Timeframe: The model took the perspective of the health care payer. Patients were followed up for 10 years from initiation of dialysis. Our cost-utility analysis compared the intervention with receiving no treatment. Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the cost-utility ratio for all patients initiating dialysis was $103,779 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison to no treatment. Patients who initiated with facility-based HD were treated at a cost-utility ratio of $104,880/QALY and patients who initiated with home PD were treated at a cost-utility ratio of $83,762/QALY. During this time horizon, the total mean cost and QALYs per patient were estimated at $350,774 ± $204,704 and 3.38 ± 2.05) QALYs respectively. Limitations: The results do not include costs from the societal perspective. Rare patient trajectories were unable to be assessed. Conclusions: This model demonstrates that patients who initiated dialysis with PD were treated more cost-effectively than those who initiated with HD during a 10-year time horizon.