Objective
Evaluate differences in the cost and prevalence of renal replacement therapies (RRTs) such as transplants, peritoneal dialysis, and hemodialysis in Argentina, Costa Rica, and Uruguay, based on cost-effective dissemination strategies.
Methods
Costs and prevalence obtained from the main financers and providers in each country; analysis of cost-effectiveness using a Markov model with a five-year horizon, evaluating resource allocation strategies for their incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as quality-adjusted years of life.
Results
There is observed dispersion among countries in terms of access to and beneficial value of RRTs, affecting their prevalence and monetary breakeven point. From the cost standpoint, it is more efficient to promote transplants and peritoneal dialysis, and to discourage hemodialysis, although the availability of each RRT in each country required a specific evaluation.
Conclusions
Promoting transplants saves costs, but the variable breakeven points make it necessary to determine different cost-effectiveness thresholds for each country. In Argentina and Uruguay, RRTs would be more cost-effective with an increase in the number of patients in peritoneal dialysis and higher donation rates for transplants. In Costa Rica (where there is a high transplant rate and large budgetary margin), the use of dialysis is aligned with demand and with the incidence of patients with terminal chronic kidney disease.