Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am Health Drug Benefits. 2018 May;11(3):118-127.

Comparing Treatment Modalities for End-Stage Renal Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

Author information

1
Research Associate, Division of Economic Social and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee.
2
Associate Professor, Division of Economic Social and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee.

Abstract

Background:

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) imposes significant economic and social burdens on patients and healthcare systems. In the United States alone, more than 600,000 Americans have ESRD, with an estimated annual cost of treatment of more than $30 billion. Peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis are competing renal replacement therapies in ESRD; however, data comparing quality-of-life outcomes between these 2 modalities are limited.

Objectives:

To compare the effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis with the more common treatment modality of hemodialysis on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with ESRD in the general, physical, and psychological domains; and to determine whether the time of publication and the origin of each study influenced its findings regarding the effectiveness of the 2 modalities.

Methods:

This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to collect the data. PubMed, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were the primary databases searched. Only articles published in English were included in this meta-analysis. The measure of effect size was Cohen's standardized mean difference. A random-effects model was used to test the hypothesis of equality in the mean HRQoL.

Results:

A total of 15 studies with a combined sample size of 4318 patients met the study criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled effect sizes based on the random-effects model were 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.17-0.66) in the general domain; 0.10 (95% CI, -0.09-0.29) in the physical-functioning domain; and 0.29 (95% CI, -0.13-0.71) in the psychological-functioning domain. None of the summary effect sizes was statistically significant. Subgroup analyses favored peritoneal dialysis regarding the time and country of publication.

Conclusion:

The majority of the studies included in this analysis favored peritoneal dialysis over hemodialysis in all 3 domains. However, the pooled effect sizes were not significant, resulting in the inability to conclude that peritoneal dialysis is the more effective of these 2 treatment modalities.

KEYWORDS:

end-stage renal disease; health-related quality of life; hemodialysis; peritoneal dialysis; random-effects model; subgroup analysis

PMID:
29910844
PMCID:
PMC5973249

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center