Background: The benefits of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) have been established, but patient adherence to treatment remains a concern. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs are a potential solution; however, the cost implications are not well established. This study modeled, from the payer perspective, expected net costs and clinical consequences of a novel RPM program in Colombia. Methods: Amarkov model was used to project costs and clinical outcomes for APD patients with and without RPM. Clinical inputs were directly estimated from Renal Care Services data or taken from the literature. Dialysis costs were estimated from national fees. Inpatient costs were obtained from a recent Colombian study. The model projected overall direct costs and several clinical outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were also conducted to characterize uncertainty in the results. Results: The model projected that the implementation of an RPM program costing US$35 per month in a cohort of 100 APD patients over 1 year would save US$121,233. The model also projected 31 additional months free of complications, 27 fewer hospitalizations, 518 fewer hospitalization days, and 6 fewer peritonitis episodes. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to hospitalization rates and days of hospitalization, but cost savings were robust. The PSA found there was a 91% chance for the RPM program to be cost saving. Conclusion: The results of the model suggest that RPM is cost-effective in APD patients which should be verified by a rigorous prospective cost analysis.

To examine new evidence linking expanded hemodialysis (HDx) using a medium cut-off (MCO) membrane with hospitalizations, hospital days, medication use, costs, and patient utility. This retrospective study utilized data from Renal Care Services medical records database in Colombia from 2017 to 2019.Clinics included had switched all patients from high flux hemodialysis (HD HF) to HDx and had at least a year of data on HD HF and HDx. Data included demographic characteristics, comorbidities, years on dialysis, hospitalizations, medication use, and quality of life measured by the 36 item and Short Form versions of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life survey at the start of HDx, and 1 year after HDx, which were mapped to EQ-5D utilities. Generalized linear models were run on the outcomes of interest with an indicator for being on HDx. Annual cost estimates were also constructed. The study included 81 patients. HDx was significantly associated with lower dosing of erythropoietin stimulating agents, iron, hypertension medications, and insulin. HDx was also significantly associated with lower hospital days per year (5.94 on HD vs. 4.41 on HDx) although not with the number of hospitalizations. Estimates of annual hospitalization costs were 23.9% lower using HDx and patient utilities did not appear to decline. HDx was statistically significantly associated with reduced hospitalization days and lower medication dosages. Furthermore, this preliminary analysis suggested potential for HDx being a dominant strategy in terms of costs and utility and should motivate future work with larger samples and better controls.

Introduction: Expanded hemodialysis (HDx) effectively removes large middle molecular uremic toxins (>25 kDa) while still retaining albumin, potentially reducing their adverse effects. We compare the clinical laboratory parameters, hospitalization rates, and medication use in a cohort of patients switched from high-flux HD to HDx. Methods: This is a multicenter, observational cohort study of 81 adult patients, across 3 clinics, with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on chronic hemodialysis (HD). Patients received high-flux HD for at least 1 year and then switched to HDx and were followed up for 1 year. Patients were excluded if they discontinued therapy, changed provider, underwent kidney transplant, recovered kidney function, or changed to peritoneal dialysis, another dialyzer, or renal clinic. Results: Twelve months after switching to HDx, the rate of hospitalization events per patient-year decreased from 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60–0.98, 61 events) to 0.71 (95% CI: 0.55–0.92, 57 events) (p = 0.6987). The hospital day rate per patient-year was significantly reduced from 5.94 days in the year prior to switching compared with 4.41 days after switching (p = 0.0001). The mean dose of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (SC epoetin-α) and intravenous iron also significantly decreased (p = 0.0361 and p = 0.0003, respectively). Conclusion: Switching to HDx was associated with reductions in hospital day rate and medication use, suggesting HDx has the potential to reduce the burden of ESKD on patients and healthcare systems.

The results indicate that by replacing salmeterol/fluticasone or formoterol/budesonide with indacaterol, there are possible cost savings for the Colombian health care system. This was demonstrated by both cost-effectiveness and budget impact models.

Background In Colombia, the best strategy to establish indication for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer (EBC) remains unknown. This study aimed to identify the cost-utility of Oncotype DX™ (ODX) or Mammaprint™ (MMP) tests to establish the necessity of adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods This study used an adapted decision-analytic model to compare cost and outcomes of care between ODX or MMP tests and routine care without ODX or MMP tests (adjuvant chemotherapy for all patients) over a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the Colombian National Health System (NHS; payer). Inputs were obtained from national unit cost tariffs, published literature, and clinical trial database. The study population comprised women with hormone-receptor-positive (HR +), HER2-negative, lymph-node-negative (LN0) EBC with high-risk clinical criteria for recurrence. The outcome measures were discounted incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR; 2021 United States dollar per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) were performed. Results ODX increases QALYs by 0.05 and MMP by 0.03 with savings of $2374 and $554 compared with the standard strategy, respectively, and were cost-saving in cost-utility plane. NMB for ODX was $2203 and for MMP was $416. Both tests dominate the standard strategy. Sensitivity analysis revealed that with a threshold of 1 gross domestic product per capita, ODX will be cost-effective in 95.5% of the cases compared with 70.2% cases involving MMP.DSA showed that the variable with significant influence was the monthly cost of adjuvant chemotherapy. PSA revealed that ODX was a consistently superior strategy. Conclusions Genomic profiling using ODX or MMP tests to define the need of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with HR + and HER2 −EBC is a cost-effective strategy that allows Colombian NHS to maintain budget.