Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) patients often require long-term care, and while Hemodialysis (HD) is the standard treatment, Comprehensive Conservative Care (CCC) is gaining popularity as an alternative. Economic evaluations comparing their cost-effectiveness are crucial. This study aims to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing HD and CCC using the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O instruments to assessing healthcare interventions in CKD patients. METHODS: This short-term economic evaluation involved 183 participants (105 HD, 76 CCC) and collected data on demographics, comorbidities, laboratory results, treatment costs, and HRQoL measured by ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) and Net Monetary Benefit (NMB) were calculated separately for each instrument, and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) assessed uncertainty. RESULTS: CCC demonstrated significantly lower costs (mean difference $8,544.52) compared to HD. Both EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O indicated higher Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for both groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CCC dominated HD in terms of HRQoL measures, with ICERs of -$141,742.67 (EQ-5D-5L) and -$4,272.26 (ICECAP-O). NMB was positive for CCC and negative for HD, highlighting its economic feasibility. CONCLUSION: CCC proves a preferable and more cost-effective treatment option than HD for CKD patients aged 65 and above, regardless of the quality-of-life measure used for QALY calculations. Both EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O showed similar results in cost-utility analysis.