A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses across the acute kidney injury landscape

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex and common condition associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and costs. Evidence from cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) have targeted various aspects of AKI including detection with biomarkers, treatment with renal replacement therapy, and prevention when using contrast media. However, there has not been a systematic review of these studies across the entirety of AKI.

Areas covered: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were used to identify CEA studies that involved AKI from 2004 onwards. These studies compared AKI treatment through renal replacement therapies (n = 6), prevention of contrast-induced-AKI (CI-AKI) using different media (n = 3), and diagnosis with novel biomarkers (n = 2). Treatment strategies for AKI focused on continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy. While there was no consensus, the majority of studies favored the continuous form. For contrast media, both studies found iodixanol to be cost-effective compared to iohexol for preventing CI-AKI. Additionally, novel biomarkers showed potential to be cost-effective in risk assessment and detection of AKI.

Expert opinion: Consistent criteria such as a lifetime time horizon would allow for better model comparisons. Further research on clinical parameters to capture transition probabilities between stages within AKI and progression to downstream kidney disease is needed.

KEYWORDS:

• Acute kidney injury
• cost-effectiveness
• systematic review
• renal replacement therapy
• biomarkers
• contrast media

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.