Modelling treatment trajectories to optimize the organization of renal replacement therapy and public health decision-making

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 2372-2382

  Couchoud, Cécile ^a   Dantony, Emmanuelle ^b,c   Elsensohn, Mad Hélénie ^b,c   Villar, Emmanuel ^b,d   Ecochard, René ^b,c  

^a AGENCE DE LA BIOMÉDECINE   (France)

^b HOSPICES CIVILS DE LYON   (France)

^c CNRS   (France)

^d CENTRE HOSPITALIER SAINT JOSEPH SAINT LUC   (France)

Author keywords

Epidemiology ESRD; Model; Outcome; Simulation; Trajectories

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CADAVER DONOR; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEMODIALYSIS; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIFESPAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MORTALITY; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT TRAJECTORY MODEL; TREND STUDY;

EPIDEMIOLOGY ESRD; MODEL; OUTCOME; SIMULATION; TRAJECTORIES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; KIDNEY FAILURE, CHRONIC; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROGNOSIS; PUBLIC HEALTH; REGISTRIES; RENAL DIALYSIS; RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY; SURVIVAL RATE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84884514302     PISSN: 09310509     EISSN: 14602385     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gft204     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Stack AG. Determinants of modality selection among incident US dialysis patients: results from a national study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13: 1279-1287
2. Mignon F, Michel C, Viron B. Why so much disparity of PD in Europe? Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998; 13:1114-1117
3. Jassal SV, Krishna G, Mallick NP et al. Attitudes of British Isles nephrologists towards dialysis modality selection: a questionnaire study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17: 474-477
4. Jung B, Blake PG, Mehta RL et al. Attitudes of Canadian nephrologists toward dialysis modality selection. Perit Dial Int 1999; 19: 263-268
5. Couchoud C, Savoye E, Frimat L et al. Variability in case mix and peritoneal dialysis selection in fifty-nine French districts. Perit Dial Int 2008; 28: 509-517
6. van de Luijtgaarden MW, Noordzij M, Stel VS et al. Effects of comorbid and demographic factors on dialysis modality choice and related patient survival in Europe. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26: 2940-2947
7. Jager KJ, Korevaar JC, Dekker FW et al. The effect of contraindications and patient preference on dialysis modality selection in ESRD patients in The Netherlands. Am J Kidney Dis 2004; 43: 891-899
8. Mendelssohn DC, Mullaney SR, Jung B et al. What do American nephologists think about dialysis modality selection? Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37:22-29
9. Ross S, Dong E, Gordon M et al. Meta-analysis of outcome studies in end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int 2000; 57: S-28-S-38
10. Mehrotra R, Chiu YW, Kalantar-Zadeh K et al. The outcomes of continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis are similar. Kidney Int 2009; 76: 97-107
11. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1725-1730
12. Xue JL, Everson SE, Constantini EG et al. Peritoneal and hemodialysis: II. Mortality risk associated with initial patient characteristics. Kidney Int 2002; 61: 741-746
13. Fenton SS, Schaubel DE, Desmeules M et al. Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a comparison of adjusted mortality rates. Am J Kidney Dis 1997; 30: 334-342
14. Frimat L, Durand PY, Loos-Ayav C et al. Impact of first dialysis modality on outcome of patients contraindicated for kidney transplant. Perit Dial Int 2006; 26: 231-239
15. Schaubel DE, Morrison HI, Fenton SS. Comparing mortality rates on CAPD/CCPD and hemodialysis. The Canadian experience: fact or fiction? Perit Dial Int 1998; 18: 478-484
16. Vonesh EF, Snyder JJ, Foley RN et al. Mortality studies comparing peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: what do they tell us? Kidney Int Suppl 2006; 103: S3-S11
17. Sens F, Schott-Pethelaz AM, Labeeuw M et al. Survival advantage of hemodialysis relative to peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease and congestive heart failure. Kidney Int 2011; 80: 970-977
18. Jaar BG. The Achilles heel of mortality risk by dialysis modality is selection bias. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011; 22: 1398-1400
19. Moss AH. Shared decision-making in dialysis: the new RPA/ASN guideline on appropriate initiation and withdrawal of treatment. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37: 1081-1091
20. Covic A, Bammens B, Lobbedez T et al. Educating end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis modality selection: clinical advice from the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) Advisory Board. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010; 25: 1757-1759
21. Stel VS, van de Luijtgaarden MW, Wanner C et al. The 2008 ERAEDTARegistry Annual Report-a precis. NDT Plus 2011; 4: 1-13
22. U S Renal Data System. USRDS 2011 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. 2011
23. Couchoud C, Stengel B, Landais P et al. The renal epidemiology and information network (REIN): a new registry for end-stage renal disease in France. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21: 411-418
24. Strang WN, Tuppin P, Atinault A et al. The French organ transplant data system. Stud Health Technol Inform 2005; 116: 77-82
25. Lee CP, Chertow GM, Zenios SA. A simulation model to estimate the cost and effectiveness of alternative dialysis initiation strategies. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 535-549
26. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. New York:Wiley, 2002
27. Kay R. A Markov model for analysing cancer markers and disease states in survival studies. Biometrics 1986; 42: 855-865
28. Schaubel DE, Morrison HI, Desmeules M et al. End-stage renal disease in Canada: prevalence projections to 2005. CMAJ 1999; 160: 1557-1563
29. Roderick P, Davies R, Jones C et al. Simulation model of renal replacement therapy: predicting future demand in England. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 692-701
30. Rodina-Theocharaki A, Bliznakova K, Pallikarakis N. Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation for projection of end stage renal disease patients in Greece. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2012; 107: 90-96
31. Gilbertson DT, Liu J, Xue JL et al. Projecting the number of patients with end-stage renal disease in the United States to the year 2015. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16: 3736-3741
32. Xue JL, Ma JZ, Louis TA et al. Forecast of the number of patients with end-stage renal disease in the United States to the year 2010. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12: 2753-2758
33. Weijnen TJ, van Hamersvelt HW, Just PM et al. Economic impact of extended time on peritoneal dialysis as a result of using polyglucose: the application of a Markov chain model to forecast changes in the development of the ESRD programme over time. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003; 18: 390-396
34. Haller M, Gutjahr G, Kramar R et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of renal replacement therapy in Austria. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26: 2988-2995
35. Teerawattananon Y, Mugford M, Tangcharoensathien V. Economic evaluation of palliative management versus peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: evidence for coverage decisions in Thailand. Value Health 2007; 10: 61-72
36. Liem YS, Wong JB, Winkelmayer WC et al. Quantifying the benefit of early living-donor renal transplantation with a simulation model of the Dutch renal replacement therapy population. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012; 27: 429-434