Initiating Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Centre Haemodialysis in the United Kingdom: A Cost-Utility and Budget Impact Analysis

OBJECTIVES: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are the principal initiating dialysis modalities for patients with kidney failure. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with early survival benefits, potential cost advantages and improved lifestyle flexibility; however, it is underutilised in the UK. This analysis aims to capture the benefits of initiating on PD compared with in-centre HD (ICHD) within UK National Health Service (NHS) practice using a cost-utility analysis (CUA) and budget impact analysis (BIA), supported by recently published UK and European renal registry data. METHODS: The CUA employed a state-transition Markov model structure to capture the cost-utility of initiating dialysis with PD versus ICHD for incident people with kidney failure over a lifetime horizon. The model captured lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs to the NHS per treatment arm. The BIA employed a budget impact model (BIM) to capture the hypothetical budget impact of increasing annual uptake of PD and home haemodialysis (HHD) at equal rates relative to current practice, with the principal objective of reaching a 20% PD prevalence within 5 years. Both models are informed by recent, UK-specific data. RESULTS: Initiating incident people with kidney failure on PD instead of ICHD resulted in 0.15 additional QALYs and £19,728 in cost savings per patient. Initiation on PD is therefore a dominant strategy, meaning that it improves health outcomes while reducing costs compared with ICHD initiation. It remains dominant across a range of scenarios and sensitivity analyses. Additionally, the UK cost savings were estimated by the BIA to be £219,866,940 over 5 years, further emphasising the financial benefits of increased PD uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Results from these analyses demonstrate that initiating patients with kidney failure on PD instead of ICHD is a dominating strategy, as it saves costs and improves health outcomes. Furthermore, they show that increasing PD uptake relative to current practice could contribute to alleviating the NHS's financial burdens, given growing demand for dialysis treatment. These comprehensive, UK-specific evaluations provide evidence of the potential benefits of increased PD within current UK clinical practice, helping to inform decisions around dialysis modality choice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PharmacoEconomics - Open
Published
2026-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-026-00692-5
Primary Topic
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Initiating Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Centre Haemodialysis in the United Kingdom: A Cost-Utility and Budget Impact Analysis

Mark Lambie, Vanessa Danielson, James Fotheringham, Reginald Lassagne et al.
PharmacoEconomics - Open
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
article

Initiating Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Centre Haemodialysis in the United Kingdom: A Cost-Utility and Budget Impact Analysis

Mark Lambie, Vanessa Danielson, James Fotheringham, Reginald Lassagne, C. Rinciog, Patrick Jolomba, Tara Danying Li, Susan Berek, Araadhna Sinha, Meagen Hicks, Jennifer Allen
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are the principal initiating dialysis modalities for patients with kidney failure. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with early survival benefits, potential cost advantages and improved lifestyle flexibility; however, it is underutilised in the UK. This analysis aims to capture the benefits of initiating on PD compared with in-centre HD (ICHD) within UK National Health Service (NHS) practice using a cost-utility analysis (CUA) and budget impact analysis (BIA), supported by recently published UK and European renal registry data. METHODS: The CUA employed a state-transition Markov model structure to capture the cost-utility of initiating dialysis with PD versus ICHD for incident people with kidney failure over a lifetime horizon. The model captured lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs to the NHS per treatment arm. The BIA employed a budget impact model (BIM) to capture the hypothetical budget impact of increasing annual uptake of PD and home haemodialysis (HHD) at equal rates relative to current practice, with the principal objective of reaching a 20% PD prevalence within 5 years. Both models are informed by recent, UK-specific data. RESULTS: Initiating incident people with kidney failure on PD instead of ICHD resulted in 0.15 additional QALYs and £19,728 in cost savings per patient. Initiation on PD is therefore a dominant strategy, meaning that it improves health outcomes while reducing costs compared with ICHD initiation. It remains dominant across a range of scenarios and sensitivity analyses. Additionally, the UK cost savings were estimated by the BIA to be £219,866,940 over 5 years, further emphasising the financial benefits of increased PD uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Results from these analyses demonstrate that initiating patients with kidney failure on PD instead of ICHD is a dominating strategy, as it saves costs and improves health outcomes. Furthermore, they show that increasing PD uptake relative to current practice could contribute to alleviating the NHS's financial burdens, given growing demand for dialysis treatment. These comprehensive, UK-specific evaluations provide evidence of the potential benefits of increased PD within current UK clinical practice, helping to inform decisions around dialysis modality choice.

PharmacoEconomics - Open
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Keele University (GB), University of Sheffield (GB)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon