An economic evaluation of sevelamer in patients new to dialysis

Different Effect of Lanthanum Carbonate and Sevelamer Hydrochloride on Calcium Balance in Patients with Moderate to Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

Objective

Opposite to lanthanum carbonate (LC), sevelamer hydrochloride (SH) may increase intestinal calcium absorption. The study compared the effects of LC and SH on serum and urine phosphate and calcium, and on hormones regulating mineral-bone metabolism.

Patients and Methods

A prospective randomized crossover study included 34 patients with eGFR <60 mL/min. A single oral dose of LC (1,000 mg) or SH (2,400 mg) was administered in random order 15 minutes after a standardized meal fortified with 5 g calcium carbonate. Serum calcium, phosphate, and parathormone were measured before and 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after each medication. Bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), sclerostin, calcitriol, and FGF-23 were measured at baseline and after 12 and 24 hours. A 24-hour calcium and phosphate excretion was measured after each drug.

Results

Serum calcium increased 3 and 6 hours after SH then returned to baseline. After LC calcium was unchanged for up to 3 hours then transiently increased and eventually returned to baseline. The area under curve (AUC) of serum calcium for 12 hours after SH was larger than after LC (p=0.04). Serum phosphate decreased after each drug with a nadir 3 hours post-SH and 6 hours post-LC. AUC of serum phosphate was similar after both medications. PTH decreased transiently after both drugs. BAP did not change. FGF-23 was constant for the first 12 hours but later decreased after each drug.

Conclusion

A 2,400 mg SH and 1,000 mg LC are similarly effective in lowering serum phosphate in CKD, but LC induce in less intestinal calcium absorption after a meal. The trial was registered on February 23, 2018 in the clinicaltrial.gov database – NCT03451019.

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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in Predialysis Patients: Calcium-Based versus Noncalcium-Based Phosphate Binders

Background

Hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is often treated with calcium carbonate (CaCO3) despite the fact that CaCO3 is associated with increased calcium load and potentially increased cardiovascular risk. Alternative treatments with noncalcium-based phosphate binders do not increase the calcium load but are more costly. This study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer versus CaCO3 for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in stage III-V predialysis CKD patients in Malaysia.

Methods

A Markov decision model was adapted to simulate a hypothetical cohort of CKD patients requiring treatment for hyperphosphatemia. Survival was estimated by using efficacy data from the INDEPENDENT-CKD clinical trial. Cost data was obtained from Malaysian studies while health state utilities were derived from literature. Analysis was performed over lifetime duration from the perspective of the Ministry of Health Malaysia with 2013 as reference year.

Results

In the base case analysis, sevelamer treatment gained 6.37 life years (5.27 QALY) compared to 4.25 life years (3.54 QALY) with CaCO3. At 3% discount, lifetime costs were RM159,901 ($48,750) and RM77,139 ($23,518) on sevelamer and CaCO3, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of sevelamer versus CaCO3 was RM47,679 ($14,536) per QALY, which is less than the WHO threshold of three times GDP per capita (RM99,395) per QALY. Sensitivity analyses, both using scenario sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, showed the result to be robust.

Conclusions

Our study finds that sevelamer is potentially cost-effective compared to CaCO3, for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in predialysis CKD III-V. We propose that sevelamer should be an option in the treatment of Malaysian predialysis patients with hyperphosphatemia, particularly those with high calcium load.

Economic Evaluation of Sevelamer versus Calcium-based Binders in Treating Hyperphosphatemia among Patients with End-stage Renal Disease in China

PURPOSE

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis study of sevelamer versus calcium-based binders (CBBs) in treating hyperphosphatemia among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in China.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model of a lifetime horizon was used for base case analysis from the payers' perspective. The transition probabilities between different health states were derived from survival analysis. The overall survival of CBBs was derived from the Dialysis Clinical Outcomes Revisited study for up to 44 months and a Weibull regression model was used to extrapolate the overall survival to a lifetime horizon. A hazard ratio (0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93) of the overall survival for sevelamer versus CBBs was used to calculate the survival of the sevelamer group. Clinical and cost data were derived from literature and health care system in the local setting. Incremental life year and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were the primary outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model assumptions and parameters. The results were reported in 2015 Chinese Renminbi.

FINDINGS

The incremental cost per life year and per QALY gained of sevelamer versus CBBs was ¥44,475 and ¥57,910, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was below the World Health Organization's recommended cost-effectiveness threshold (¥151,070), which is 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of 2015 in China. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival with sevelamer versus CBBs in the 1-way sensitivity analysis. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that sevelamer had a 89.6% likelihood of cost-effectiveness at the ¥151,070 threshold.

IMPLICATIONS

Sevelamer is likely to be a cost-effective option in treating hyperphosphatemia among patients with ESRD compared with CBBs in the local context of China.

Managing oral phosphate binder medication expenditures within the Medicare bundled end-stage renal disease prospective payment system: economic implications for large U.S. dialysis organizations

BACKGROUND

From January 2016, payment for oral-only renal medications (including phosphate binders and cinacalcet) was expected to be included in the new Medicare bundled end-stage renal disease (ESRD) prospective payment system (PPS). The implementation of the ESRD PPS has generated concern within the nephrology community because of the potential for inadequate funding and the impact on patient quality of care.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the potential economic impact of the new Medicare bundled ESRD PPS reimbursement from the perspective of a large dialysis organization in the United States.

METHODS

We developed an interactive budget impact model to evaluate the potential economic implications of Medicare payment changes to large dialysis organizations treating patients with ESRD who are receiving phosphate binders. In this analysis, we focused on the budget impact of the intended 2016 integration of oral renal drugs, specifically oral phosphate binders, into the PPS. We also utilized the model to explore the budgetary impact of a variety of potential shifts in phosphate binder market shares under the bundled PPS from 2013 to 2016.

RESULTS

The base model predicts that phosphate binder costs will increase to $34.48 per dialysis session in 2016, with estimated U.S. total costs for phosphate binders of over $682 million. Based on these estimates, a projected Medicare PPS $33.44 reimbursement rate for coverage of all oral-only renal medications (i.e., phosphate binders and cinacalcet) would be insufficient to cover these costs. A potential renal drugs and services budget shortfall for large dialysis organizations of almost $346 million was projected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that large dialysis organizations will be challenged to manage phosphate binder expenditures within the planned Medicare bundled rate structure. As a result, large dialysis organizations may have to make treatment choices in light of potential inadequate funding, which could have important implications for the quality of care for patients with ESRD.

Sevelamer carbonate: a review in hyperphosphataemia in adults with chronic kidney disease

Sevelamer carbonate (Renvela(®)), a buffered form of sevelamer hydrochloride (Renagel(®)), is an orally administered non-absorbed phosphate-binding anion exchange resin used in the treatment of hyperphosphataemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the EU, sevelamer carbonate is approved in adult CKD patients who require dialysis and in those who do not require dialysis with serum phosphate levels ≥ 1.78 mmol/L, whereas in the USA sevelamer carbonate is approved in adult CKD patients who require dialysis. Sevelamer carbonate and sevelamer hydrochloride achieved similar reductions in serum phosphate levels in randomized comparative trials in patients with CKD receiving haemodialysis; sevelamer carbonate also reduced serum phosphate levels in noncomparative studies in CKD patients not requiring dialysis. The most common adverse events with sevelamer carbonate are gastrointestinal in nature. Sevelamer has pleiotropic effects, such as improving the serum lipid profile and attenuating endothelial and cardiovascular risk factors in CKD. All formulations of sevelamer have markedly higher acquisition costs than calcium-based phosphate binders. Cost-effectiveness analyses focusing specifically on sevelamer carbonate have not been conducted, and those based on clinical trial data with sevelamer hydrochloride have provided both favourable and unfavourable results compared with calcium-based phosphate binders, reflecting heterogeneity between modelled analyses in terms of data sources, assumptions, comparators, geographical regions, type of costs included and other factors. Although well-designed studies evaluating the impact of phosphate binders on hard clinical endpoints appear to be warranted, sevelamer carbonate may be particularly useful for the treatment of patients at risk of metabolic acidosis (offering advantages over sevelamer hydrochloride in this regard) and for individuals requiring treatment with a phosphate binding agent that does not contain aluminium or calcium.

Estimating utility values for vesicoureteral reflux in the general public using an online tool

INTRODUCTION

Cost-utility analyses are useful to study conditions without a widely accepted treatment algorithm; in pediatric urology, one such condition is vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). A necessary component of cost-utility analyses is to accurately calculate the "utility", a numerical surrogate of quality of life, for various health states. Our aims were to determine utility values for representative VUR health states and to verify the feasibility of a novel online platform for utility elicitation in order to reduce the time and expense of such analyses.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of American adults was conducted using the time-trade-off (TTO) method. Respondents were recruited from an online work interface, Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Four annualized VUR health states were assessed: VUR treated with/without continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) and with/without associated febrile urinary tract infection (UTI). A 6-week post-operative scenario following open ureteroneocystostomy was also assessed.

RESULTS

We received 278 survey responses (70% response rate). The respondents were largely between the ages of 25 and 44 (59%), female (60%), and Caucasian (76%). Thirty-seven percent had a college degree, and 44% were parents. Compared with a perfect health state of 1.0, we found mean utilities of 0.87 for VUR, regardless of whether CAP was used or whether UTI was present (p=0.9). The immediate post-operative period following ureteroneocystostomy garnered an annualized utility of 0.94.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that MTurk-based utility assessment is feasible, and that subjects view the VUR health state as only slightly inferior to perfect health. This includes VUR health states incorporating CAP and febrile UTI.

Cost-minimization analysis of lanthanum carbonate versus sevelamer hydrochloride in US patients with end-stage renal disease

PURPOSE

Sevelamer hydrochloride (SH) and lanthanum carbonate (LC) are calcium-free phosphate binders used in the clinical management of hyperphosphatemia in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of LC monotherapy compared with SH monotherapy in US patients with ESRD in a clinical practice setting.

METHODS

This was a post hoc assessment of phosphate binder costs among US patients with ESRD who converted from SH to LC monotherapy in a previously published, 16-week, Phase IV, real-world study. Calculations of drug costs used both average wholesale price (AWP) and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

FINDINGS

There were 953 patients with available baseline SH dose data; 950 also had a recorded LC dose >0 mg at baseline, and 691 had dose data available for both SH at baseline and LC at week 16 (post hoc analysis population). Baseline demographic characteristics were similar in excluded patients and the post hoc analysis population. Mean (SD) serum phosphate levels were 5.91 (1.66) mg/dL at baseline and 5.93 (1.85) mg/dL after conversion to LC monotherapy for 16 weeks. Mean AWP costs were US$35.72 (16.89) per day at baseline and US$24.69 (8.28) per day at week 16, yielding an overall mean cost change (defined as LC cost - SH cost) of -US$11.03 (16.37) per day in favor of LC. The overall mean WAC cost change was -US$9.17 (13.64) per day. Within baseline SH dose subgroups 2400 to 4800, >4800 to 7200, >7200 to 9600, and >9600 mg/d, the mean AWP cost change ranged from US$2.78 (9.26) per day in favor of SH for the 2400- to 4800-mg/d subgroup to -US$33.15 (12.58) per day in favor of LC for the >9600-mg/d subgroup. Mean WAC cost changes showed a similar trend, ranging from US$2.33 (7.72) per day to -US$27.59 (10.48) per day. Linear regression analyses revealed that the inflection SH doses corresponding to a mean cost change of zero were 4905 mg/d (AWP) and 4908 mg/d (WAC). For the 455 (66%) patients in the post hoc analysis population who had baseline SH doses at least as high (≥ 5600 mg/d) as these point estimates, the mean SH:LC tablet ratio was ≥ 3.7, indicating a mean reduction in the tablet burden after conversion to LC of ≥ 73%.

IMPLICATIONS

This real-world assessment of comparative phosphate binder drug costs between SH and LC among US patients with ESRD indicates that average cost savings with LC use increased with increasing SH doses. Conversion to LC from SH ≥ 5600 mg/d reduced drug costs and tablet burden while maintaining serum phosphate levels.

Clinical and economic aspects of sevelamer therapy in end-stage renal disease patients

Phosphate control is still a great challenge in chronic kidney disease (CKD), and in spite of the great improvements in dialysis techniques, achievement of the goals for mineral metabolism control is still far from ideal. Aluminum hydroxide has been largely abandoned due to the high risk of aluminum toxicity, while the use of calcium-based phosphate binders may cause hypercalcemia, overzealous parathyroid suppression, and extraskeletal calcification. Sevelamer hydrochloride has been introduced as an efficient medication for phosphate control, with a lower risk of hypercalcemia and parathyroid suppression. Various clinical trials have compared the risk of vascular calcification between sevelamer and calcium salts with inconsistent results. In spite of these inconsistencies, the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) suggests non-calcium phosphate binders as the preferred phosphate binder in dialysis patients with severe vascular and/or other soft-tissue calcifications and in those with hypercalcemia or parathyroid hormone (PTH) <150 mg/dL. The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome (KDIGO) limits the use of non-calcium phosphate binders to patients with hypercalcemia. Regarding the effect on mortality, the results of clinical trials are again inconsistent. The other important aspect of using sevelamer is the issue of price, which is substantially higher than calcium-based phosphate binders. Reviewing the studies on economic aspects shows that sevelamer increases quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and possibly life years, with a higher cost compared to calcium-based phosphate binders. In conclusion, sevelamer is a very useful drug for phosphate control, reduction of hypercalcemia, and lessening the risk of adynamic bone disease, with probable reduction in vascular calcification and possible reduction in mortality rate. It has a higher economic burden on health care systems compared to calcium-based phosphate binders. This may affect its extensive use according to guideline recommendations, and will be influenced by local health care budgets and the decision of health care strategists.

Use of nicotinamide to treat hyperphosphatemia in dialysis patients

Hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been associated with elevated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Serum phosphate control remains a cornerstone of the clinical management of patients with CKD, in order to both attenuate the progression of secondary hyperparathyroidism or bone disease and (possibly) reduce the risk of vascular calcification. Despite technical improvements in dialysis and the use of dietary restrictions, drug therapy is often required to control phosphate levels in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Currently available medications for hyperphosphatemia in ESRD are very expensive and not always well tolerated. The discovery and development of new drugs in this indication is therefore a priority for both medical and health-economic reasons. Nicotinamide (an amide derivative of the water-soluble vitamin B₃) is a potentially interesting alternative to phosphate binders. In vitro and in vivo data show that nicotinamide reduces hyperphosphatemia by inhibiting sodium-dependent phosphate co-transport in the renal proximal tubule and in the intestine. Accordingly, targeting the sodium-dependent phosphate co-transporter 2b by using nicotinamide as an alternative or adjunct to classical phosphate binders may be a therapeutic option for modulating serum phosphate in CKD. Several recent clinical studies have explored the potential value of nicotinamide in phosphate control (as well as its effects on lipid levels) in dialysis patients. However, we consider that more data on pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and safety are needed before this compound can be recommended as a treatment for hyperphosphatemia in ESRD patients.

Optimizing the cost-effectiveness of treatment for chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder

Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) is an important risk factor in patients with CKD, and some medications for treating CKD-MBD have been recently marketed. Because assessment of health-care cost-effectiveness is growing in importance with increases in health expenditures, several cost-effectiveness analyses for new medications such as sevelamer, lanthanum carbonate, cinacalcet hydrochloride, and paricalcitol have been conducted. The results of these analyses have stimulated discussion on the efficient use of these medications and, in some cases, have affected treatment recommendation. However, most of these studies had methodological problems, one of them being that the effectiveness of medications was estimated based on changes of surrogate parameters, such as vascular calcification or serum biochemistry values. Furthermore, even if cost-effectiveness analyses were based on a given clinical trial, the results might differ from country to country. To provide greater health benefits under limited health expenditures based on the results of cost-effectiveness analyses, it is necessary to confirm the effectiveness of medications through well-designed clinical trials having mortality as the primary end point. In addition, cost-effectiveness analyses need to be performed separately for each country.

A modeled economic evaluation of sevelamer for treatment of hyperphosphatemia associated with chronic kidney disease among patients on dialysis in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

There is limited information regarding the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis in the UK. Using a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and final results of the Dialysis Clinical Outcomes Revisited (DCOR) study, an evaluation was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer compared to calcium-based phosphate binders for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients on dialysis.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, incremental cost per life year (LY) gained, and QALY gained. Treatment-specific overall survival up to 44 months, hospitalizations, and resource utilization were derived from the DCOR study. Survival was extrapolated to a lifetime horizon using Weibull regression analysis. Unit costs and utility estimates specific to the UK were obtained from the published literature. Sub-group analyses were conducted based on data reported from the DCOR study for increasing age cut-points. Outcomes and costs were modeled for a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, the use of sevelamer resulted in a gain of ∼0.73 LYs and 0.44 QALYs per patient (discounted at 3.5% per year). Total per-patient costs were higher for sevelamer, resulting in an incremental cost of £22,157 per QALY gained and £13,427 per LY gained (in £2009). Increasingly favorable cost per QALY ratios were observed with increasing age cut-points, ranging from £15,864 for patients ≥45 to £13,296 for patients ≥65 years of age. Results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding overall survival and the inclusion of dialysis costs. Key limitations of the analysis included the use of non-UK trial data for survival and hospitalizations, and the exclusion of quality-of-life impacts associated with hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In CKD patients receiving dialysis, treatment of hyperphosphatemia with sevelamer offers good value for money compared with calcium-based binders.

Sevelamer for hyperphosphataemia in kidney failure: controversy and perspective

The term 'chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder' (CKD-MBD), coined in 2006, was introduced in a position statement by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization. According to the KDIGO guidelines, CKD-MBD is a systemic disorder and patients with vascular or valvular calcifications should be included in the group with the greatest cardiovascular risk. Therefore, the presence or absence of calcification is a key factor in strategy decisions for such patients. In particular, it is recommended that the use of calcium-based phosphate binders should be restricted in patients with hypercalcaemia, vascular calcification, low levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) or adynamic bone disease. In this respect, it should be underscored that treatment with phosphate-binding agents can normalise the levels of phosphate and PTH, but the use of calcium carbonate can favour the progression of vascular calcifications. There is evidence of reduced progression of vascular calcification in patients treated with sevelamer compared with high doses of calcium-based binders, but there is as yet no strong evidence regarding hard outcomes, such as mortality or hospitalization, to support the use of one treatment over another. Nevertheless, a number of experimental and observational findings seem to suggest that sevelamer should be preferred over calcium-based binders, in as much as these can increase cardiovascular mortality when used in high doses. A threshold dose below which calcium-based binders can be used safely in CKD patients with hyperphosphatemia has yet to be established.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies for chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis: a case for excluding dialysis costs

In many jurisdictions, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) plays an important role in determining drug coverage and reimbursement and, therefore, has the potential to impact patient access. Health economic guidelines recommend the inclusion of future costs related to the intervention of interest within CEAs but provide little guidance regarding the definition of 'related'. In the case of CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis but do not impact the need for or the intensity of dialysis, the determination of the relatedness of future dialysis costs to the therapy of interest is particularly ambiguous. The uncertainty as to whether dialysis costs are related or unrelated in these circumstances has led to inconsistencies in the conduct of CEAs for such products, with dialysis costs included in some analyses while excluded in others. Due to the magnitude of the cost of dialysis, whether or not dialysis costs are included in CEAs of such therapies has substantial implications for the results of such analyses, often meaning the difference between a therapy being deemed cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are excluded) or not cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are included). This paper explores the issues and implications surrounding the inclusion of dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of dialysis patients but do not impact the need for dialysis. Relevant case studies clearly demonstrate that, regardless of the clinical benefits of a life-extending intervention for dialysis patients, and due to the high cost of dialysis, the inclusion of dialysis costs in the analysis essentially eliminates the possibility of obtaining a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio. This raises the significant risk that dialysis patients may be denied access to interventions that are cost effective in other populations due solely to the high background cost of dialysis itself. Finally, the paper presents a case for excluding dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients receiving dialysis but do not impact the need for dialysis. The argument is founded on the following: (i) health economic guidelines imply that dialysis costs are unrelated to such therapies and therefore should not be included in CEAs of such therapies; (ii) the high cost and cost-effectiveness ratio associated with dialysis place an unreasonable and insurmountable barrier to demonstrating the cost effectiveness of such therapies, particularly since the decision to fund dialysis has already been made; and (iii) current clinical and reimbursement practices include the use of such therapies for patients with CKD receiving dialysis. We conclude that the exclusion of dialysis costs in such cases is methodologically correct given current health economic guidelines and is consistent with current practices regarding the treatment of dialysis patients.

Cost-effectiveness of lanthanum carbonate versus sevelamer hydrochloride for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in patients with end-stage renal disease: a US payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of lanthanum carbonate (LC) versus sevelamer hydrochloride (SH) as a treatment for hyperphosphatemia in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate health outcomes; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life-years saved (LYS), as well as associated costs. The model incorporated patient-level data from a randomized head-to-head crossover study that compared the reduction of serum phosphorus using LC and SH for 4 weeks each. The model included patients previously treated with calcium-based binders. Both the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and the cohort of patients who completed treatment in both periods of the study (i.e., completer population) were assessed. The baseline risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD), all-cause mortalities for CVD, and non-CVD patients were derived from a large US renal database. Patient outcomes were modeled for 10 years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for LC relative to SH. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model.

RESULTS

For the ITT population, the ICERs of LC versus SH were $24,724/QALY and $15,053/LYS, respectively (in US dollars). When the completer population was considered, the ICERs of LC versus SH were $15,285/QALY and $9,337/LYS (Table 2), respectively. The PSA indicated 61.9% and 85.8% probabilities for ITT and completer populations of LC being cost-effective at the $50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LC is a cost-effective strategy compared with SH in the treatment of ESRD patients with hyperphosphatemia who were previously treated with calcium-based binders. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the pharmacoeconomic model.

Phosphate binders for preventing and treating bone disease in chronic kidney disease patients

BACKGROUND

Phosphate binders are widely used to lower serum phosphorus levels in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) but their impact in CKD remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of various phosphate binders on biochemical and patient-level end-points in CKD stages 3 to 5D.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In March 2010 we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register and CENTRAL for relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that assessed the effects of various phosphate binders in adults with CKD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed search results and extracted data. Results were expressed as mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty studies (7631 participants) were included. There was no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (10 studies, 3079 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.16), or serum calcium by phosphorus (Ca x P) product with sevelamer hydrochloride compared to calcium-based agents. There was a significant reduction in serum phosphorus (16 studies, 3126 participants: MD 0.23 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42) and parathyroid hormone (PTH) (12 studies, 2551 participants; MD 56 pg/mL, 95% CI 26 to 84) but a significant increase in the risk of hypercalcaemia (12 studies, 1144 participants: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.59) with calcium-based agents compared to sevelamer hydrochloride. There was a significant increase in the risk of adverse gastrointestinal events with sevelamer hydrochloride in comparison to calcium salts (5 studies, 498 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.25). Compared with calcium-based agents, lanthanum significantly reduced serum calcium (2 studies, 122 participants: MD -0.30 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.25) and the Ca x P product, but not serum phosphorus levels. The effects of calcium acetate on biochemical end-points were similar to those of calcium carbonate. The phosphorus lowering effects of novel agents such as ferric citrate, colestilan and niacinamide were only reported in a few studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available phosphate-binding agents have been shown to reduce phosphorus levels in comparison to placebo. However, there are insufficient data to establish the comparative superiority of novel non-calcium binding agents over calcium-containing phosphate binders for patient-level outcomes such as all-cause mortality and cardiovascular end-points in CKD.

Management strategies for Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser related vaginal agenesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

The optimal method for neovagina creation in patients with vaginal agenesis is controversial. Progressive perineal dilation is a minimally invasive method with high success rates. However, the economic merits of progressive perineal dilation compared to surgical vaginoplasty are unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a Markov based cost-effectiveness analysis of 3 management strategies for vaginal agenesis-progressive perineal dilation with and without subsequent vaginoplasty, and up-front vaginoplasty. Cost data were drawn from the Pediatric Health Information System database (2004 to 2009) for inpatient procedures and from governmental cost data (2009) for outpatient procedures and clinical followup. Other model parameters were derived from a systematic literature review and comparison with other congenital and acquired pediatric and/or adolescent gynecologic conditions. Bounded and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess model stability.

RESULTS

Including all procedures, equipment and physician visits, progressive perineal dilation had a mean cost of $796, while vaginoplasty cost $18,520. Up-front vaginoplasty was strongly dominated at any age, ie was more expensive but no more effective than other options. In cases of progressive perineal dilation failure the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progressive perineal dilation with subsequent vaginoplasty was $1,564 per quality adjusted life-year. Only the utility weights of life after treatment impacted model outcomes, while frequency of followup and probability of treatment success did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial progressive perineal dilation followed by vaginoplasty in cases of dilation failure is the most cost-effective management strategy for vaginal agenesis. Initial vaginoplasty was less cost-effective than initial progressive perineal dilation in 99.99% of simulations.

Update and critical appraisal of sevelamer in the management of chronic renal failure

Sevelamer (Renagel and Renvela), is an orally administered weakly basic anion exchange resin that binds dietary phosphate in the gastrointestinal tract, and is approved for use in the US, Europe and many other countries for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in adult patients on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Clinical evidence shows that sevelamer is at least as effective as calcium-based oral phosphate binders in controlling serum phosphate, but with a lower incidence of hypercalcemia. Whilst sevelamer hydrochloride is associated with mild acidosis, sevelamer carbonate does not have this drawback. Use of sevelamer and avoidance of calcium-based binders may slow the progression of vascular calcification in hemodialysis patients, and it also reduces serum low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels. There was no between-group difference in all-cause mortality between sevelamer and calcium-based phosphate binder therapy in the primary efficacy analysis of the large (n >2100), 3-year DCOR trial. In the smaller (n = 109) nonblind RIND trial in patients new to hemodialysis, data suggest there may be an overall survival benefit with sevelamer versus calcium-based phosphate binder treatment but the evidence on the efficacy of sevelamer in reducing mortality and hospitalization is not strong. The balance of evidence, however, does not strongly support the use of sevelamer over the much less costly calcium-based binders except in patients at risk of hypercalcemic episodes. Further research into cardiovascular and all-cause mortality over a longer time period would be needed to settle this issue, and the relative survival benefits and cost effectiveness of all phosphate binder therapies remains to be fully determined. Despite the relative paucity of data available, sevelamer has established itself as the most widely used binder in the United States and the most widely used noncalcium-based binder worldwide. However, affordability is a major issue for most health economies and in the light of recent economic events is likely to become more prominent.

Towards cost-effective strategies for treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder in Japan

There is a growing interest worldwide in making a more effective and efficient use of limited health care resources. Dialysis treatment in Japan and other countries is being confronted with increasing expenditure due to an aging population, coverage of new medical technologies, and an increase in the dialysis population. Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) is an important issue related to the increased expenditure among dialysis patients because it is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality, and results in a high economic burden. In recent years, several economic analyses on the treatment of CKD-MBD have been reported from Western countries. Given the longer dialysis vintage of Japanese patients, it is very important to conduct economic evaluation from a long-term viewpoint using clinical data on Japanese patients. This article reviews the recent literature on economic evaluation of CKD-MBD treatments and discusses the road ahead for cost-effectiveness analysis in Japanese dialysis patients with CKD-MBD.

Benefits and harms of phosphate binders in CKD: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Phosphate binders are widely used to control serum phosphorus levels in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We analyzed the effects of phosphate binders on biochemical and patient-level end points in patients with CKD.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE (1966 to April 2009), EMBASE (1980 to April 2009), and the Cochrane Renal Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).

SETTING & POPULATION

Patients with CKD.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized controlled trials.

INTERVENTION

Phosphate binders.

OUTCOMES

Serum phosphorus, calcium, and parathyroid hormone levels; incidence of hypercalcemia; all-cause mortality; adverse effects.

RESULTS

40 trials (6,406 patients) were included. There was no significant decrease in all-cause mortality (10 randomized controlled trials; 3,079 patients; relative risk [RR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 1.16), hospitalization, or end-of-treatment serum calcium-phosphorus product levels with sevelamer compared with calcium-based agents. There was a significant decrease in end-of-treatment phosphorus and parathyroid hormone levels with calcium salts compared with sevelamer and a significant decrease in risk of hypercalcemia (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.62) with sevelamer compared with calcium-based agents. There was a significant increase in risk of gastrointestinal adverse events with sevelamer in comparison to calcium salts (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.87). Compared with calcium-based agents, lanthanum significantly decreased end-of-treatment serum calcium and calcium-phosphorus product levels, but with similar end-of-treatment phosphorus levels. Effects of calcium acetate on biochemical end points were similar to those of calcium carbonate. Existing data are insufficient to conclude for a differential impact of any phosphate binder on cardiovascular mortality or other patient-level outcome.

LIMITATIONS

Few long-term studies of the efficacy of phosphate binders on mortality and musculoskeletal morbidity, significant heterogeneity for many surrogate outcomes, and suboptimal reporting of study methods to determine trial quality.

CONCLUSION

Currently, there are insufficient data to establish the comparative superiority of non-calcium-binding agents over calcium-containing phosphate binders for such important patient-level outcomes as all-cause mortality and cardiovascular end points. Additional trials are still required to examine the differential effects of phosphate-binding agents on these end points and the mineral homeostasis pathway.