Cost analytic model to determine the least costly inpatient erythropoiesis stimulating therapy regimen.

BACKGROUND: Unlike in outpatient settings, the comparative costs of epoetin alpha (EPO) and darbepoetin alpha (DARB) have not been evaluated broadly from the inpatient hospital perspective. OBJECTIVE: To develop a cost analytic model comparing hospital inpatient costs for erythropoiesis stimulating therapies within the nephrology and oncology settings. METHODS: A cost analytic model incorporating erythropoietic drug, pharmacy, and nursing costs was developed from the inpatient hospital perspective to evaluate comparative costs of EPO and DARB. Erythropoietic drug costs were calculated using unit wholesale acquisition cost multiplied by the number of units or micrograms while comparing the following dosing regimens: EPO 3 times weekly, EPO once weekly, and DARB once weekly. Pharmacy costs included dispensing and delivery costs, while nursing costs incorporated administration time costs; all were calculated by estimated fractional hours per activity multiplied by hourly wages. The total frequency of erythropoiesis stimulating therapy administrations was determined based on the average hospital length of stay. The first erythropoiesis stimulating therapy dose was assumed to occur on day 3 of hospitalization. For total inpatient costs, a weighted average was calculated across disease states. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying length of stay, day of initial erythropoiesis stimulating therapy dose, pharmacy and nursing costs, and once-weekly DARB dose. RESULTS: EPO 3 times weekly was the least costly regimen across all disease states evaluated. Threshold analysis indicated that the cost of once-weekly DARB regimens would have to be reduced by 37% to equal the cost of EPO 3 times weekly for an average length of stay. Sensitivity analyses did not considerably affect the results. CONCLUSIONS: EPO 3 times weekly was found to be the least costly erythropoiesis stimulating therapy regimen for nephrology and oncology inpatients for the average length of stay as well as most other lengths of stay considered. Once-weekly EPO was the least costly erythropoiesis stimulating therapy regimen for several other lengths of stay, while once-weekly DARB was never found to be the least costly regimen.

Dose and cost comparison of erythropoietic agents in the inpatient hospital setting.

PURPOSE: The inpatient dosing patterns and treatment costs in cancer and predialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients treated with erythropoietic agents from a hospital pharmacy perspective were studied. METHODS: An analysis of electronic inpatient records from the Premier Perspective comparative hospital database was conducted. Study participants were identified through hospitalizations recorded between July 2002 and March 2005 from over 500 hospitals nationwide. Adult patients with an admitting diagnosis of cancer or predialysis CKD and treated with epoetin alfa or darbepoetin alfa during hospitalization were included. Patients who had received renal dialysis or both agents during a hospitalization were excluded. Wholesale acquisition costs from September 2006 were used to calculate drug costs. RESULTS: A total of 25,645 hospitalized patients with cancer (22,873 received epoetin alfa; 2,772 received darbepoetin alfa) and 66,822 hospitalized patients with CKD (60,079 received epoetin alfa; 6,743 received darbepoetin alfa) were identified. The mean cumulative dose per hospitalization resulted in dose ratios of 245:1 and 242:1 (units epoetin alfa:micrograms darbepoetin alfa) for cancer and CKD patients, respectively. On the basis of the cumulative dose per hospitalization, drug costs for darbepoetin alfa-treated patients were approximately 50% higher than drug costs for epoetin alfa-treated patients for both oncology and CKD patients. CONCLUSION: Epoetin alfa was associated with less cost compared with darbepoetin alfa for treating inpatients with cancer or CKD. Further research including the patients' clinical outcomes is necessary to determine the true pharmacoeconomic differences between the two agents.