Pharmacological control of secondary hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis subjects: a cost consequences analysis of data from the FARO study

Health economic evaluation of paricalcitol(®) versus cinacalcet + calcitriol (oral) in Italy. [corrected]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a highly morbid disorder. The most severe form of CKD is end-stage renal disease (ESRD), in which the patient requires some form of renal replacement therapy to survive. The increasing incidence, prevalence, and costs of ESRD are major national healthcare concerns. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of two innovative therapies, paricalcitol versus cinacalcet + calcitriol (oral) in patients with CKD stage 5 (CKD 5) in the healthcare setting in Italy in 2013.

METHODS

A Markov process model was developed employing data sources from the published literature, paricalcitol clinical trials, official Italian price/tariff lists, and national population statistics. The analysis is based on a comparison of treatment with paricalcitol versus cinacalcet + calcitriol (oral) in CKD 5. The perspective of the study was that of the payer [Italian National Health Service (INHS)]. The primary efficacy outcomes in the paricalcitol and cinacalcet + calcitriol (oral) clinical trials (reduction of secondary hyperparathyroidism, complications, and mortality) were extrapolated to effectiveness outcomes: number of life-years gained (LYG) and number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical and economic outcomes were discounted at 3 %.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis is based on a 5-year time horizon. From the INHS perspective, the use of paricalcitol leads to a cost saving of €1,853 and an increase in LYG (0.136) and a gain in QALYs (0.089). Consequently, the use of paricalcitol is dominant over the use of combination cinacalcet + calcitriol (oral paricalcitol leads to cost savings and a higher effectiveness). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that the favorable clinical benefit of paricalcitol results in positive health economic benefits. This study suggests that the use of paricalcitol in patients with ESRD may be cost effective from the perspective of the INHS.

Evaluating targets and costs of treatment for secondary hyperparathyroidism in incident dialysis patients: the FARO-2 study

Background

The aim of this analysis was to estimate biochemical parameters and the costs of treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in a subpopulation of the FARO-2 study.

Methods

The FARO-2 observational study aimed at evaluating the patterns of treatment for SHPT in naïve hemodialysis patients. Data related to pharmacological treatments and biochemical parameters (parathyroid hormone [PTH], calcium, phosphate) were recorded at entry to hemodialysis (baseline) and 6 months later (second survey). The analysis was performed from the Italian National Health Service perspective.

Results

Two prominent treatment groups were identified, ie, one on oral calcitriol (n=105) and the other on intravenous paricalcitol (n=33); the intravenous calcitriol and intravenous paricalcitol + cinacalcet combination groups were not analyzed due to low patient numbers. At baseline, serum PTH levels were significantly higher in the intravenous paricalcitol group (P<0.0001). At the second survey, the intravenous paricalcitol group showed a higher percentage of patients at target for PTH than in the oral calcitriol group without changing the percentage of patients at target for phosphate. Moreover, between baseline and the second survey, intravenous paricalcitol significantly increased both the percentage of patients at target for PTH (P=0.033) and the percentage of patients at target for the combined endpoint PTH, calcium, and phosphate (P=0.001). The per-patient weekly pharmaceutical costs related to SHPT treatment, erythropoietin-stimulating agents and phosphate binders accounted for 186.32€ and 219.94€ at baseline for oral calcitriol and intravenous paricalcitol, respectively, while after 6 months, the costs were 180.51€ and 198.79€, respectively. Either at the beginning of dialysis or 6 months later, the total cost of SHPT treatment was not significantly lower in the oral calcitriol group compared with the intravenous paricalcitol group, with a difference among groups that decreased by 46% between the two observations. The cost of erythropoietin stimulating agents at the second survey was lower (−22%) in the intravenous paricalcitol group than in the oral calcitriol group (132.13€ versus 168.36€, respectively).

Conclusion

Intravenous paricalcitol significantly increased the percentage of patients at target for the combined endpoint of PTH, calcium, and phosphate (P=0.001). The total cost of treatment for the patients treated with intravenous paricalcitol 6 months after entry to dialysis was not significantly higher than the cost for patients treated with oral calcitriol.

Which vitamin D in CKD-MBD? The time of burning questions

Vitamin D is a common treatment against secondary hyperparathyroidism in renal patients. However, the rationale for the prescription of vitamin D sterols in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is rapidly increasing due to the coexistence of growing expectancies close to unsatisfactory evidences, such as (1) the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) proving the superiority of any vitamin D sterol against placebo on patients centered outcomes, (2) the scanty clinical data on head to head comparisons between the multiple vitamin D sterols currently available, (3) the absence of RCTs confirming the crescent expectations on nutritional vitamin D pleiotropic effects even in CKD patients, (4) the promising effects of vitamin D receptors activators (VDRA) against proteinuria and myocardial hypertrophy in diabetic CKD cohorts, and (5) the conflicting data on the impact on mortality of VDRA versus calcimimetic centered regimens to control CKD-MBD. The present review arguments these issues focusing on the opened questions that nephrologists should consider dealing with the prescription of nutritional vitamin D or VDRA and with the choice of a VDRA versus a calcimimetic based regimen in CKD-MBD patients.