Trial reportJAMA network open2025
Cost-Utility Analysis of Accelerated and Standard Strategies for Renal Replacement Therapy Initiation.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Little is known about the long-term costs and outcomes related to strategies for timing of initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). Objective: To estimate the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of accelerated KRT initiation compared with standard KRT initiation in critically ill patients with AKI. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a state-transition model was developed using data from the Standard vs Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in AKI (STARRT-AKI) trial, a multicenter, multinational randomized clinical trial of critically ill patients with severe AKI conducted between October 2015 and September 2019. Trial data were linked to administrative health databases in Alberta, Canada, to estimate costs and long-term clinical outcomes. The model included 4 health states: no chronic kidney disease, severe chronic kidney disease, KRT dependent, and dead. Costs are reported in 2024 Canadian dollars. Data were analyzed from February 2022 to November 2024. Exposure: Initiation of KRT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome for the economic evaluation was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The QALY is a combined measure of patient quality of life and length of life. Expected costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were estimated on the basis of 5000 Monte Carlo simulations. Results: A total of 146 patients from the STARRT-AKI trial were included in the analysis, with 73 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.67 [14.5] years; 52 men [71.3%]) randomized to receive accelerated initiation and 73 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.88 [12.9] years; 48 men [65.8%]) randomized to receive standard initiation. Standard initiation was more costly per patient than accelerated initiation (mean [SD], $251 370 [$155 801] vs $231 518 [$183 302]) but generated more QALYs (mean [SD] 7.49 [2.03] QALYs vs 6.64 [1.76] QALYs). The ICER of standard initiation compared with accelerated initiation was $23 208, with an INMB of $22 648 (95% credible interval, $15 980-$29 316) when assuming a willingness to pay per QALY of $50 000. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this economic evaluation suggest that standard KRT initiation may be cost-effective in a Canadian setting, but this finding was sensitive to postdischarge cost trajectories and regional variation in KRT dependence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.