Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Sevelamer and Lanthanum versus Calcium-Based Binders for Hyperphosphatemia of Chronic Kidney Disease

Evaluating a multicomponent intervention for managing kidney outcomes among patients with moderate or advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD): protocol for the Strategies for Kidney Outcomes Prevention and Evaluation (SKOPE) randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses a global health challenge with high morbidity and mortality rates. Early detection and prompt intervention are critical in preventing progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and cardiovascular complications. Effective CKD management requires comprehensive care packages that integrate both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions within collaborative, team-based models, aiming to enhance patient outcomes and overall quality of life. The goal of the Strategies for Kidney Outcomes Prevention and Evaluation (SKOPE) study is to establish effective multicomponent intervention (MCI) strategies for evaluating and preventing kidney outcomes in patients with moderate to advanced CKD within primary care settings in Singapore.

METHODS

This study is a 3-year randomized controlled trial among 896 participants aged between 40 and 80 years with moderate or advanced CKD in five government-subsidized polyclinics in Singapore. The components of the MCI are (1) nurses/service coordinators trained as health coaches for motivational conversation and CKD-specific lifestyle counseling on diet and exercise, using a hybrid follow-up approach of in-person, telephone, and secure video meetings; (2) training physicians in algorithm-based standardized management of CKD; (3) subsidy on SGLT2i medications for CKD; and (4) regular CKD case review meetings. The primary outcome is the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) total slope from randomization to final follow-up at 36 months.

DISCUSSION

If shown to be effective, cost-effective, and acceptable, SKOPE should be considered for scaling country-wide and in similar regional healthcare systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05295368. Registered on March 25, 2022.

The efficacy and safety of cuttlebone for lowering serum phosphate in patients with end-stage renal disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The efficacy of cuttlebone for treating hyperphosphatemia in patients with end-stage renal disease and its safety remained unclear. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of cuttlebone with conventional interventions were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Airiti Library, and other major Chinese databases until 1 February 2023. The primary outcome was circulating phosphate concentration, while secondary outcomes included circulating calcium and intact parathyroid hormone levels, calcium-phosphorus product, and treatment-related side-effects. Results: Analysis of nine studies published between 2000 and 2019 including 726 participants showed a lower circulating phosphate concentration in the cuttlebone group than in controls [mean difference (MD) = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.39 to -0.06, p = 0.006, I2 = 94%, 726 patients] and a dose-dependent effect of cuttlebone against hyperphosphatemia. Therapeutic benefits were noted after both short-term (1-2 months) and long-term (3-6 months) treatments. Besides, patients receiving hemodialysis showed a better response to cuttlebone than those receiving peritoneal dialysis. There was no difference in circulating calcium level (mean difference = 0.03, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.07, p = 0.17, I2 = 34%, 654 patients), while patients receiving cuttlebone showed lower circulating iPTH level and calcium-phosphorus product (MD = -43.63, 95% CI: -74.1 to -13.16, p = 0.005, I2 = 76%, 654 patients), (MD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.38 to -0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 83%, 520 patients). No difference in the risks of constipation, gastrointestinal discomfort, and elevated blood calcium was noted between the two groups. Conclusion: Compared with conventional phosphate-binding agents, cuttlebone more efficiently suppressed hyperphosphatemia with a dose-dependent effect. The limited number of included studies warrants further clinical investigations to verify our findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023396300.

Evaluation of the cost-utility of phosphate binders as a treatment option for hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients commonly results in vascular calcification leading to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Phosphate binders (PBs) are used for hyperphosphatemia and can be calcium-based (CBPBs) or non-calcium-based (NCBPBs), the latter being more expensive than CBPBs. In this study, we used meta-analysis approaches to assess the cost-utility of PBs for hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients.

METHODS

Relevant studies published prior to June 2019 were identified from PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Studies were eligible if they included CKD patients with hyperphosphatemia, compared any PBs and reported economic outcomes. Meta-analysis was applied to pool incremental net benefit (INB) across studies stratified by country income.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies encompassing 32 comparisons were eligible. Lanthanum carbonate, a NCBPB, was a more cost-effective option than CBPBs in high-income countries (HICs), with a pooled INB of $3984.4 (599.5-7369.4), especially in pre-dialysis patients and used as a second-line option with INBs of $4860.2 (641.5-9078.8), $4011.0 (533.7-7488.3), respectively. Sevelamer, also a NCBPB, was not more cost-effective as a first-line option compared to CBPBs with a pooled INB of $6045.8 (- 23,453.0 to 35,522.6) and $34,168.9 (- 638.0 to 68,975.7) in HICs and upper middle-income countries, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Lanthanum carbonate was significantly more cost-effective than CBPBs as a second-line option for hyperphosphatemia in pre-dialysis patients in HICs. However, the use of sevelamer is not more cost-effective as a first-line option compared to CBPBs.

Hyperphosphataemia in 2019: have we made progress?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review describes recent developments in the management of serum phosphate in dialysis patients, with a focus on the development of recent trials which randomize patients to different levels of control.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review the uncertainties around clinical benefits of serum phosphate control and alternative approaches to current management, as well as a multinational attempt to conduct randomized controlled trials in this area. We discuss novel methods of limiting oral phosphate absorption.

SUMMARY

Although numerous guidelines and target ranges for serum phosphate management exist, they are largely based on observational data and there is no definitive evidence that good control improves the length or quality of life of dialysis patients. New phosphate binders continue to appear on the market with increasing financial cost but without additional meaningful outcome data. Two recently published trials have demonstrated the feasibility of a large-scale study of differing phosphate levels to test the hypothesis that reduction of serum phosphate is beneficial to dialysis patients. Restriction of oral phosphate intake should not be overlooked.

A systematic review of the economic evaluations of non-calcium-containing phosphate binders, sevelamer and Lanthanum, in end-stage renal disease patients with hyperphosphatemia

INTRODUCTION

End-stage renal disease is associated with significant comorbidity and mortality. Among its implications, hyperphosphatemia constitutes a consistent and independent risk factor. The use of benchmark treatment, low-cost calcium-based binders declined due to a potential calcification effect on coronary arteries.

AREAS COVERED

Given the increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease and the high cost of hyperphosphatemia's new primary modality, the non-calcium based phosphate binders, we set-off to systematically assess the economic evaluations of non-calcium containing phosphate binders, sevelamer and lanthanum. The study was performed based on a systematic review of the economic evaluations of sevelamer and lanthanum. The cost-effectiveness profile of the two non-calcium-containing Phosphate Binders compared to calcium-based phosphate binders depends on several factors such as future dialysis costs, utility values, age, survival, and phosphorus levels.

EXPERT OPINION

The comparison between the two agents is rather inconclusive; nevertheless, current review suggests that non-calcium-based phosphate binders may yield a positive cost-effectiveness ratio in patients with inadequate phosphorus management and patient with longer life-expectancy. It is crucial that the literature is endowed with more data, specifically on survival, future dialysis costs, and calcification.