A Cost-Effective Analysis of the CYCLE-HD Randomized Controlled Trial
Daniel S. March, Adam W. Hurt, Charlotte Grantham, Darren R. Churchward, Hannah Young, Patrick J. Highton, Maurice Dungey, Nicolette C. Bishop, Alice C. Smith, Matthew Graham‐Brown, Nicola J. Cooper, James O. Burton
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: No formal cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed for programs of cycling exercise during dialysis (intradialytic cycling [IDC]). The objective of this analysis is to determine the effect of a 6-month program of IDC on health care costs. METHODS: This is a retrospective formal cost-effectiveness analysis of adult participants with end-stage kidney disease undertaking in-center maintenance hemodialysis enrolled in the CYCLE-HD trial. Data on hospital utilization, primary care consultations, and prescribed medications were extracted from medical records for the 6 months before, during, and after a 6-month program of thrice-weekly IDC. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a health care service perspective and included the cost of implementing the IDC intervention. The base-case analyses included a 6-month "within trial" analysis and a 12-month "within and posttrial" analysis considering health care utilization and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. RESULTS: = 53 IDC subjects) showed a reduction in health care utilization costs between groups, favoring the IDC group, and a 73% chance of IDC being cost-effective compared with control subjects at a willingness to pay of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. When QoL data points were extrapolated forward to 12 months, the probability of IDC being cost-effective was 93% and 94% at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis broadly confirms these findings. CONCLUSION: A 6-month program of IDC is cost-effective and the implementation of these programs nationally should be a priority.