Switching from high‐flux dialysis to hemodiafiltration: Cost‐consequences for patients, providers, and payers

Abstract

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) achieves a more efficient reduction of the uremic toxic load compared to standard high‐flux hemodialysis (HF‐HD) by virtue of the combined diffusive and convective clearances of a broad spectrum of uremic retention solutes. Clinical trials and registry data suggest that HDF improves patient outcomes. Despite the acknowledged need to improve survival rates of dialysis patients and the survival benefit HDF offers, there is little to no utilization in some countries (such as the US) in prescribing HDF to their patients. In this analysis, we present the healthcare value‐based case for HDF (relative to HF‐HD) from the patient, provider, and payor perspectives. The improved survival and reduced morbidity observed in studies conducted outside the US, as well as the reduced hospitalization, are attractive for each stakeholder. We also consider the potential barriers to greater utilization of HDF therapies, including unfounded concerns regarding additional costs of HDF, e.g., for the preparation and microbial testing of quality of substitution fluids. Ultrapure fluids are easily attainable and prepared from dialysis fluids using established “online“ (OL) technologies. OL‐HDF has matured to a level whereby little additional effort is required to safely implement it as all modern machine systems are today equipped with the OL‐HDF functionality. Countries already convinced of the advantages of HF‐HD are thus well positioned to make the transition to OL‐HDF to achieve further clinical and associated economic benefits. Healthcare systems struggling to cope with the increasing demand for HD therapies would therefore, like patients, be beneficiaries in the long term with increased usage of OL‐HDF for end stage kidney disease patients.