ABSTRACT
Objectives: There is a lack of data in Panama on the potential differences in total healthcare professional (HCP) time between routine administrations of short-acting erythropoietin simulating agents (ESAs) (i.e. epoetin alfa) and continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) (i.e. methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta). This study aimed to quantify the HCP time associated with a single administration of epoetin alfa and CERA for the treatment of anemic patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on hemodialysis. Methods: This was a multi-center, cross-sectional study, using a time-and-motion methodology. Costs related to HCP time and consumables usage associated with administration of epoetin alfa and CERA were estimated. Results: Based on 60 administrations of either CERA or epoetin alfa, the estimated savings in mean total active HCP time were 2.34 (95% confidence interval = 1.87-2.81) min (-30%) per administration. When extrapolating to a full year's treatment with intravenous ESA, it would require a total of 20.3 (95% CI = 19.90-20.71) h of HCP time for epoetin alfa vs 1.1 (95% CI = 1.01-1.19) h for CERA per patient per year. Estimated savings in active HCP time per patient per year were 19.20 (95% CI = 19.20-19.21) h (-95%). This, in turn, translates into staff cost efficiency that favors Mircera with an estimated annual saving of $78.24 (95% CI = 78.24-78.28) (-95%) per patient. Conclusions: Data from a real-world setting showed that the adoption of CERA could potentially lead to a reduction in active HCP time. Highlights Few comparative data have explored the costs and potential savings of using long-acting erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESA) instead of short-acting ESAs to treat anemia in CKD patients on hemodialysis. This time-and-motion study shows that use of CERA reduces total healthcare professional time and could represent a save for an institution in a real-world setting in Panama.
