http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/4295/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10079/ 2003-01-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: The use of polyglucose as a peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluid extends time on PD treatment. It is anticipated, therefore, that the share of patients treated with PD will be positively influenced. The relationship between extension of PD treatment time and an increase of the PD treatment share, however, is complex and needs further investigation. In this paper, a Markov chain model was applied to investigate the impact of extended time on PD treatment for the PD share in all dialysis patients in The Netherlands. Furthermore, the economic impact of the extended time on treatment (ETOT) was explored. METHODS: Scenarios were forecast over a 10 year period using aggregate data from the End-Stage Renal Registry in The Netherlands (Renine). Three scenarios were simulated in which the median PD technique survival was extended by 8, 10 and 12 months. Two other scenarios explored the impact of the combined effect of ETOT of 10 months together with a 10% and 20% increase of PD inflow shares. Reductions of costs to society due to ETOT were estimated using Dutch cost data on renal replacement therapies. RESULTS: PD share increases from 30.0% in the null scenario to 34.5% in the scenario with an ETOT of 10 months and an increased PD inflow share of 20%. The reduction in total costs to society of the renal replacement therapies is 0.96%. The average societal costs per discounted patient year for haemodialysis (HD) are 84 100 euros. For PD, these costs are 60 300 euros. A shift from HD to PD results in average cost savings of 28% per patient year. CONCLUSIONS: In view of high dialysis costs to society, a reduction of 0.96% can be considered to be relevant for healthcare policy makers. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/9818/ 2002-01-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has been assessed with health profiles and health preferences methods. Few studies have used both types of HRQOL instruments. The main objective of this study was to assess the relationship between information from the two types of HRQOL instruments in dialysis patients. METHODS: We interviewed 135 patients, using two health profiles (Short Form 36 and EuroQol/EQ-5D) and two health preferences methods (Standard Gamble and Time Trade Off). Socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment-related background data were collected from patient charts and during the interview. Relationships between the outcome measures were assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients. Multiple regression models were used to study the relationship of HRQOL outcomes to background variables. RESULTS: The HRQOL of dialysis patients as measured with health profiles was severely impaired. The health preferences scores were higher (0.82-0.89) than scores previously reported in the literature. Correlations between health profiles and health preferences were poor to modest. HRQOL outcomes were poorly explained by background characteristics. Differences between HD and PD groups could not be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Health profiles and health preferences represent different aspects of HRQOL. An impaired health status may not be reflected in the preference scores. Coping strategies and other attitudes towards health may affect the preference scores more than they influence health profile outcomes. The added value of health preferences methods in clinical research is limited. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10447/ 1988-01-01T00:00:00Z