The cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol versus paricalcitol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in stage 3-4 CKD.

Aims: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis frequently have vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) and secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), which are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, fracture, CKD progression, and death. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol (ERC) vs paricalcitol for the treatment of patients with CKD stages 3-4 that have SHPT and VDI.Materials and methods: An economic analysis of SHPT treatments among a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI was developed to estimate differences in the rates and costs of CV events, fractures, CKD stage progression, and mortality in patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol. A Markov model was developed with 1-year cycles and a 5-year time horizon from a US Medicare payer perspective with costs valued in 2017 US dollars.Results: The outcomes of the model were rates of clinical events, total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Across a 1,000-person cohort, ERC was the dominant (less costly, more effective) treatment strategy when compared with paricalcitol. Treatment with ERC resulted in cost savings of $14.8 M (95% CI = -$10.0 M-$45.2 M) and an incremental gain of 340 QALYs (95% CI = 200-496) compared to treatment with paricalcitol.Limitations: Bridging biochemical levels to clinical outcomes may not represent real-world risk of the clinical events modeled. Future real-world outcomes of patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol may be used to evaluate the model results.Conclusions: This model demonstrated favorable short- and long-term clinical benefits associated with the use of ERC in patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI, suggesting ERC may be cost-effective from the Medicare perspective compared to paricalcitol.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of paricalcitol versus calcitriol for the treatment of SHPT in dialytic patients from the SUS perspective.

Introduction: Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a consequence of chronic kidney disease. The treatment at the Brazilian Unified Heath System (SUS) is performed with calcitriol, a drug which favors hypercalcemia and/or hyperphosphatemia, hindering the control of SHPT. Another option is paricalcitol, which causes parathormone (PTH) suppression faster than calcitriol, with minor changes in calcium-phosphorus product and calcium and phosphorus serum levels. Objective: This study aims to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis of paricalcitol versus calcitriol for patients in dialytic treatment with SHPT, from the SUS perspective. Methods: A Markov decision model was developed for patients ≥ 50 years old with end stage renal disease in dialytic treatment and SHPT. Quarterly cycles and a lifetime time horizon were considered. Life years (LY) gained were assessed as clinical outcome. Clinical and economic inputs were obtained from systematic literature review and official databases. Costs are presented in Brazilian real (BRL), for the year 2014. Results: In the base case: paricalcitol generated a clinical benefit of 16.28 LY gained versus 14.11 LY gained with calcitriol, total costs of BRL 131,064 and BRL 114,262, respectively, determining an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of BRL 7,740 per LY gained. The data robustness was confirmed by the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: According to cost-effectiveness threshold recommended by the World Health Organization for 2013, the treatment of SHPT in patients on dialysis with paricalcitol is cost-effective when compared to calcitriol, from the public healthcare system perspective, in Brazil.

Introdução: O hiperparatireoidismo secundário (HPTS) é uma consequência da doença renal crônica. O tratamento no SUS é realizado com calcitriol, que favorece a hipercalcemia e/ou hiperfosfatemia, dificultando o controle do HPTS. Uma opção clinicamente relevante é o paricalcitol, que ocasiona a supressão do paratormônio (PTH) de forma mais rápida que o calcitriol e com menores alterações nas taxas séricas de cálcio, fósforo e do produto cálcio-fósforo. Objetivo: Este trabalho tem como objetivo desenvolver uma análise de custo-efetividade de paricalcitol versus calcitriol para pacientes em diálise com HPTS, perspectiva do SUS. Métodos: Foi desenvolvido um modelo de decisão de Markov para a população ≥ 50 anos, com DRC em diálise e HPTS. Foram considerados ciclos trimestrais e um horizonte temporal lifetime. O desfecho clínico avaliado foram os anos de vida ganhos. Dados foram obtidos a partir de revisão sistemática da literatura e bases de dados oficiais. Custos em reais (R$), ano de 2014. Resultados: No caso base: paricalcitol gerou benefício clínico de 16,28 anos de vida ganhos versus 14,11 anos de vida ganhos com calcitriol, custos totais de R$ 131.064 e R$ 114.262, respectivamente. A razão de custo-efetividade incremental de R$ 7.740 por ano de vida salvo. Dados robustos confirmados pela análise de sensibilidade. Conclusão: De acordo com o limiar de custo-efetividade recomendado pela Organização Mundial de Saúde para o ano de 2013, o tratamento de pacientes com HPTS em diálise com paricalcitol é custo-efetivo, comparado ao calcitriol, perspectiva SUS.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of paricalcitol versus calcitriol for the treatment of SHPT in dialytic patients from the SUS perspective / Análise de custo-efetividade de paricalcitol versus calcitriol no tratamento do HPTS em pacientes do SUS dialíticos, da perspectiva

Abstract Introduction: Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a consequence of chronic kidney disease. The treatment at the Brazilian Unified Heath System (SUS) is performed with calcitriol, a drug which favors hypercalcemia and/or hyperphosphatemia, hindering the control of SHPT. Another option is paricalcitol, which causes parathormone (PTH) suppression faster than calcitriol, with minor changes in calcium-phosphorus product and calcium and phosphorus serum levels. Objective: This study aims to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis of paricalcitol versus calcitriol for patients in dialytic treatment with SHPT, from the SUS perspective. Methods: A Markov decision model was developed for patients ≥ 50 years old with end stage renal disease in dialytic treatment and SHPT. Quarterly cycles and a lifetime time horizon were considered. Life years (LY) gained were assessed as clinical outcome. Clinical and economic inputs were obtained from systematic literature review and official databases. Costs are presented in Brazilian real (BRL), for the year 2014. Results: In the base case: paricalcitol generated a clinical benefit of 16.28 LY gained versus 14.11 LY gained with calcitriol, total costs of BRL 131,064 and BRL 114,262, respectively, determining an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of BRL 7,740 per LY gained. The data robustness was confirmed by the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: According to cost-effectiveness threshold recommended by the World Health Organization for 2013, the treatment of SHPT in patients on dialysis with paricalcitol is cost-effective when compared to calcitriol, from the public healthcare system perspective, in Brazil.

Resumo Introdução: O hiperparatireoidismo secundário (HPTS) é uma consequência da doença renal crônica. O tratamento no SUS é realizado com calcitriol, que favorece a hipercalcemia e/ou hiperfosfatemia, dificultando o controle do HPTS. Uma opção clinicamente relevante é o paricalcitol, que ocasiona a supressão do paratormônio (PTH) de forma mais rápida que o calcitriol e com menores alterações nas taxas séricas de cálcio, fósforo e do produto cálcio-fósforo. Objetivo: Este trabalho tem como objetivo desenvolver uma análise de custo-efetividade de paricalcitol versus calcitriol para pacientes em diálise com HPTS, perspectiva do SUS. Métodos: Foi desenvolvido um modelo de decisão de Markov para a população ≥ 50 anos, com DRC em diálise e HPTS. Foram considerados ciclos trimestrais e um horizonte temporal lifetime. O desfecho clínico avaliado foram os anos de vida ganhos. Dados foram obtidos a partir de revisão sistemática da literatura e bases de dados oficiais. Custos em reais (R$), ano de 2014. Resultados: No caso base: paricalcitol gerou benefício clínico de 16,28 anos de vida ganhos versus 14,11 anos de vida ganhos com calcitriol, custos totais de R$ 131.064 e R$ 114.262, respectivamente. A razão de custo-efetividade incremental de R$ 7.740 por ano de vida salvo. Dados robustos confirmados pela análise de sensibilidade. Conclusão: De acordo com o limiar de custo-efetividade recomendado pela Organização Mundial de Saúde para o ano de 2013, o tratamento de pacientes com HPTS em diálise com paricalcitol é custo-efetivo, comparado ao calcitriol, perspectiva SUS.

Budget impact of secondary hyperparathyroidism treatment in chronic kidney disease in an Ecuadorian social security hospital.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a disorder with high morbidity and mortality worldwide whose complications generate multiple costs. In Ecuador, only a few healthcare institutions have implemented management protocols aimed to reduce costs and to improve the quality of life of patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term (1-year) and long-term (5-year) costs and savings in the management of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) of hemodialyzed CKD patients by comparing calcitriol and paricalcitol in a large social security hospital in Quito, Ecuador. METHODS: The estimation model assessed the resources used in the management of SHPT by comparing prospectively the cost savings within 1-year and 5-year time horizon with calcitriol and paricalcitol. Hospitalization, erythropoietin (EPO), treatment doses, intravenous iron consumption, and medical supplies were estimated according international references, based on the initial parathormone level (iPTH) of patients. The Ecuadorian National Reference costs (2014-2015) and institutional costs were used to calculate treatment costs. A statistical sensitivity analysis was also performed. RESULTS: The study was based on data from 354 patients of whom 147 (41.4 %) had a value of iPTH in the range 300-600 pg/ml, 45 (12.8 %) in the range 601-800 pg/ml, and 162 (45.7 %) over 800 pg/ml. The 1-year estimated costs per patient for calcitriol and paricalcitol, respectively, were: medication, 63.88 USD and 1,123.44 USD; EPO, 19,522.95 USD and 16,478 USD; intravenous iron 143.21 USD and 187.76 USD. Yearly hospitalization costs per patient were 11,647.99 USD with calcitriol and 8,019.41 USD with paricalcitol. Total yearly costs per patient amounted to 31,378.02 USD with calcitriol and 25,809.50 USD with paricalcitol. Total savings using paricalcitol were 5,568.52 USD per patient compared with calcitriol. The 5-year cumulative medication costs were 319 USD for calcitriol and 2,403 USD for paricalcitol; EPO with calcitriol was 97,615 USD and with paricalcitol 82,394 USD; intravenous iron with calcitriol was 716 USD and paricalcitol 939 USD. Hospitalization costs for patients with calcitriol and paricalcitol were 43,095 USD and 62,595 USD, respectively. Total savings using paricalcitol amounted 32,414 USD per patient compared with calcitriol. CONCLUSIONS: Paricalcitol use generated more cost savings than calcitriol after 1 and 5 years.

The cost-effectiveness of drug therapies to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism in renal failure: a focus on evidence regarding paricalcitol and cinacalcet.

The present review aims to assess the state-of-the-art regarding cost-effectiveness of therapy for secondary hyperparathyroidism in order to identify the best treatment and review methodological issues. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify papers performing comparative analysis of costs and effects of treatment for secondary hyperparathyroidism in adult patients. Among the 66 papers identified, only 10 were included in the analysis. Treatment strategies evaluated in the selected papers were: cinacalcet in addition to vitamin D and phosphate binders versus vitamin D and phosphate binders only (seven papers), paricalcitol versus non-selective vitamin D (two papers), early and late introduction of cinacalcet in addition to vitamin D and phosphate binders (one paper) and paricalcitol versus cinacalcet (one paper). The high degree of heterogeneity among alternative treatments and methodological limits related to cost items considered, resource valuation methods and so on, make it unfeasible to reach a definite conclusion regarding cost-effectiveness but allow for future research opportunities.

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.

Cost effectiveness of paricalcitol versus cinacalcet with low-dose vitamin D for management of secondary hyperparathyroidism in haemodialysis patients in the USA.

BACKGROUND: The IMPACT SHPT [Improved Management of Intact Parathyroid Hormone (iPTH) with Paricalcitol-Centered Therapy Versus Cinacalcet Therapy with Low-Dose Vitamin D in Hemodialysis Patients with Secondary Hyperparathyroidism] study compared the effectiveness of paricalcitol and cinacalcet in the management of secondary hyperparathyroidism in haemodialysis patients but did not report the costs or cost effectiveness of these treatments. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a paricalcitol-based regimen versus cinacalcet with low-dose vitamin D for management of secondary hyperparathyroidism in haemodialysis patients from a US payer perspective, using a 1-year time horizon. METHODS: This was a post hoc cost-effectiveness analysis of data collected for US patients enrolled in the IMPACT SHPT study-a 28-week, randomized, open-label, phase 4, multinational study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00977080). Patients eligible for the IMPACT SHPT study were aged≥18 years with stage 5 chronic kidney disease, had been receiving maintenance haemodialysis three times weekly for at least 3 months before screening and were to continue haemodialysis during the study. Only US patients who reached the evaluation period (weeks 21-28) were included in this secondary analysis. US subjects in the IMPACT SHPT study were randomly assigned to receive intravenous paricalcitol, or oral cinacalcet plus fixed-dose intravenous doxercalciferol, for 28 weeks. Patients in the paricalcitol group could also receive supplemental cinacalcet for hypercalcaemia. The primary effectiveness endpoint in the IMPACT SHPT study was the proportion of subjects who achieved a mean intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) level of 150-300 pg/mL during the evaluation period. In this secondary analysis, we estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), comparing paricalcitol-treated patients with cinacalcet-treated patients on the basis of this primary endpoint and several secondary endpoints. Costs were estimated by examining the dosage of the study drug (paricalcitol or cinacalcet) and phosphate binders used by each participant during the trial. Nonparametric bootstrap analysis was used to examine the accuracy of the ICER point estimates. RESULTS: The percentages of patients achieving the treatment goal of a mean iPTH level between 150-300 pg/mL during weeks 21-28 of therapy were 56.9% in the paricalcitol group and 34.0% in the cinacalcet group (a difference of 23%, p=0.0235). Paricalcitol was also more effective for each of the secondary endpoints. When annualized, the total drug costs were US$10,153 in the paricalcitol group and US$15,967 in the cinacalcet group, a difference of US$5,814 (57.3%, p=0.0053). Because the paricalcitol-based treatment was less expensive and more effective, it was 'dominant', compared with cinacalcet, in this cost-effectiveness analyses. In our bootstrap analysis, 99.1% of bootstrap replicates for the ICER of the primary endpoint fell within the lower right quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane-where paricalcitol is considered dominant. For all of the other endpoints, paricalcitol was dominant in 100% of replicates. CONCLUSION: On the basis of dosing and effectiveness data from US patients in the IMPACT SHPT study, we found that a regimen of intravenous paricalcitol was more cost effective than cinacalcet plus low-dose vitamin D in the management of iPTH in patients with SHPT requiring haemodialysis.

Comparative cost analysis of management of secondary hyperparathyroidism with paricalcitol or cinacalcet with low-dose vitamin D in hemodialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to compare costs of paricalcitol or cinacalcet plus low dose vitamin D, and of phosphate binders, in patients in the IMPACT SHPT study; and to extrapolate those to estimate expected annual maintenance costs. METHODS: IMPACT SHPT was a 28-week, randomized, open-label trial. Subjects from 12 countries received intravenous (IV) or oral paricalcitol, or oral cinacalcet plus fixed IV doxercalciferol or oral alfacalcidol. The primary end-point was the proportion of subjects who achieved a mean intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) value of 150-300 pg/mL during weeks 21-28 (evaluation period). This study compares the costs of study drugs and phosphate binders among participants during the study and annualized. This analysis includes only those subjects that reached the evaluation period (134 in each group). RESULTS: The mean total drug costs over the study period were €2606 (SD = €2000) in the paricalcitol group and €3034 (SD = €3006) in the cinacalcet group (difference €428, p = 0.1712). The estimated annualized costs were €5387 (SD = €4139) in the paricalcitol group and €6870 (SD = €6256) in the cinacalcet group (difference €1492, p = 0.0395). In addition, a significantly greater proportion (p = 0.010) of subjects in the paricalcitol arm (56.0%) achieved an iPTH of 150-300 pg/mL during the evaluation period compared to the cinacalcet arm (38.2%). LIMITATIONS: This was a secondary analysis of the IMPACT SHPT study which was not designed or powered for costs as an outcome. The dosing of study drugs and phosphate binders in the IMPACT study may not reflect actual practice, and patients were followed for 28 weeks, while the treatment of SHPT is long-term. CONCLUSION: Patients with SHPT requiring hemodialysis who were treated with a paricalcitol-based regimen for iPTH control had lower estimated annual drug costs compared to those treated with cinacalcet plus low-dose vitamin D.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a frequent complication of CKD with incidence, prevalence, and costs increasing worldwide. The objective of this analysis was to estimate therapy cost of SHPT in a sub-population of the FARO study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the FARO study, an observational survey aimed to evaluate patterns of treatment in patients with SHPT who had undergone hemodialysis, pharmacological treatments and biochemical parameters evolution data were collected in four surveys. Patients maintaining the same treatment in all sessions were grouped by type of treatment and evaluated for costs from the Italian National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: Four cohorts were identified: patients treated with oral (PO) calcitriol (n=182), intravenous (IV) calcitriol (n=34), IV paricalcitol (n=62), and IV paricalcitol+cinacalcet therapy (n=20); the cinacalcet monotherapy group was not analysed due to low number of patients (n=9). Parathyroid hormone (PTH) level at baseline and effectiveness of treatments in suppressing PTH level were assessed to test comparability among cohorts: calcitriol PO patients were significantly less severe than others (PTH level at baseline lower than 300 pg/ml; p<0.0001); calcitriol IV patients did not reach significant reduction in PTH level. Paricalcitol and paricalcitol+cinacalcet treatment groups results were comparable, while only the IV paricalcitol cohort's PTH level, weekly dosage, and cost decreased significantly from the first to the fourth survey (p=0.020, p=0.012, and p=0.0124, respectively). Total costs per week of treatment (including calcium-based phosphate binder and sevelamer) were significantly lower in the paricalcitol vs paricalcitol+cinacalcet cohort (p<0.001). Major limitations of this study are related to the survey design: not controlled and lack of comparability between cohorts; however, reflective of true practice patterns. CONCLUSIONS: The IV Paricalcitol cohort had significantly lower treatment costs compared with patients treated with paricalcitol+calcimemtics (p<0.001), without a significant difference in terms of baseline severity and PTH control.

An economic comparison of surgical and medical therapy in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism--the German perspective.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for secondary hyperparathyroidism were significantly amended with the introduction of cinacalcet and paricalcitol. Limitations of resources in public health systems demand detailed analyses of accruing costs. The aim of this study was to compare the costs of these new treatment modalities to surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent initial parathyroidectomy (n = 91) and patients treated with cinacalcet or paricalcitol (n = 100) at an ambulatory dialysis center between 01/2003 and 12/2006 were analyzed. The revenues of both therapies for the funding agencies were calculated by a cost-cost analysis. The real arising costs of the supplier were analyzed and compared to the revenues. RESULTS: Treatment costs for cinacalcet (60 mg/day/year) were 5828.40€ and 4485.20€ for paricalcitol (15 µg/week/year). Revenues for inpatient surgical treatment according to the German DRG system were 3755.38€/case. Additionally, costs for postoperative ambulatory therapies were 545.05€ for the first year and 384.97€ for the following. CONCLUSION: Due to linearly increases, expenses of medical treatment with cinacalcet for more than 9 months or paricalcitol for more than 12 months exceeded the costs of surgical therapy. The indication of these new medical therapies should be restricted to patients as an interim solution ahead of surgery or in patients considered unfit for surgery.

Screening for vitamin D deficiency in the elderly.

The importance of vitamin D to normal physiologic function is well established. With deficiency becoming increasingly frequent, the potential for preventing and treating diseases through vitamin D supplementation is gaining in appreciation. Deficiency is particularly common in the geriatric population based on both behavioral and biologic factors, and has been associated with increased risk of musculoskeletal, neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular, endocrine and oncologic disease. Although some experts recommend empiric supplementation for all elderly persons, a strategy of routine screening and documented adequacy of replacement in deficient patients appears superior.

Cost Effectiveness of Paricalcitol versus a non-selective vitamin D receptor activator for secondary hyperparathyroidism in the UK: a chronic kidney disease markov model.

BACKGROUND: secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a common complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and a frequent cause of clinically significant bone disease. Non-selective vitamin D receptor (VDR) activator treatment has been used to treat the condition but is ineffective for many patients with hypercalcaemia and hyperphosphataemia and may precipitate worsening of their condition. Compared with non-selective VDR activator treatment, use of the VDR ligand paricalcitol may increase survival and reduce the risk of morbidities in patients with SHPT, which may have health economic consequences. OBJECTIVE: the objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of paricalcitol versus a non-selective VDR activator for the treatment of SHPT in patients with CKD in the UK setting. METHODS: A Markov process model was developed employing data sources from the published literature, paricalcitol clinical trials and observational studies, official UK price/tariff lists and national population statistics. The comparator was alfacalcidol, a non-selective VDR activator medication. The primary perspective of the study was that of the UK National Health Service (NHS). The efficacy outcomes (reductions in SHPT, proteinuria, complications and mortality) were extrapolated to: number of life-years gained (LYG) and number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical and economic outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. The year of costing for costs determined in the study was 2006. RESULTS: the reference case analysis was a 10-year time horizon, based on a comparison of paricalcitol with a non-selective VDR activator, which is started in CKD stage 3 (moderate reduction in glomerular filtration rate [GFR] with kidney damage) and continued in CKD stage 4 (severe reduction in GFR) and CKD stage 5 (established kidney failure). The use of paricalcitol leads to an additional medical cost of pound3224 ($US5970). The health benefits of paricalcitol lead to an increase in LYG of 0.52 and a gain in QALYs of 0.465. Therefore the use of paricalcitol results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound6933/QALY ($US12 840/QALY) from the primary perspective of the NHS. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSION: this model showed that the favourable clinical benefit of paricalcitol results in positive short- and long-term health economic benefits. This study suggests that the use of paricalcitol in patients with early CKD may be cost effective from the UK NHS perspective versus non-selective VDR activator medication.

Chronic kidney disease Markov model comparing paricalcitol to calcitriol for secondary hyperparathyroidism: a US perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of paricalcitol versus calcitriol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease in the United States setting. METHODS: A Markov process model was developed employing data sources from the published literature, paricalcitol clinical trials and observational studies, official US price/tariff lists and national population statistics. The comparator was calcitriol, a non-selective vitamin D receptor activator (VDRA) medication. The primary perspective of the study was that of the third-party payer in the US. The efficacy outcomes (reduction in secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), reduction in proteinuria, complications and mortality) were extrapolated to: number of life-years gained (LYG) and number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical and economic outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: The reference case analysis was a 10-year time horizon based on a comparison of paricalcitol with calcitriol, which is started in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3 and continued in CKD stage 4 and CKD stage 5. The use of paricalcitol leads to a cost saving of US$1941. The inclusion of indirect costs leads to a cost saving of US$2528. The use of paricalcitol leads to an increase in life-years gained (0.47 years) and a gain in QALYs (0.43). The use of paricalcitol results in a dominant outcome from the perspective of the third-party payer, as well as from the societal perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSION: This model showed that the favorable clinical benefit of paricalcitol results in positive short and long-term health economic benefits. This study suggests that the use of paricalcitol in patients with early chronic kidney disease may be cost-effective from the third-party payer perspective in the US versus calcitriol. Additional comparative studies are necessary to validate these results.

Comparative cost-benefit analyses of paricalcitol and calcitriol in stage 4 chronic kidney disease from the perspective of a health plan.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Substantial data for the relative costs of hospitalisation in paricalcitol- and calcitriol-treated patients with chronic kidney disease stage 4 do not exist. The objective of this study was to compare the cost benefit of paricalcitol and calcitriol therapies in chronic kidney disease stage 4 from the perspective of a healthcare payer. METHODS: A range of methods were used to estimate the relative costs of hospitalisation in paricalcitol- and calcitriol-treated patients with chronic kidney disease stage 4, extrapolated from observed differences in hospitalisation costs in stage 5 patients. Different values and approaches were used to show a range of values and to show the specific hospitalisation benefit in terms of the all-cause hospitalisation rate and number of all-cause hospital days. RESULTS: The annual dollar impact of use of paricalcitol instead of calcitriol on all-cause hospital admissions was calculated to be a reduction of $US1220-$US4476 and for all-cause number of hospital days a reduction of $US1816-$US8776. A total of 42 cost comparison estimates were generated to compare the cost benefit of calcitriol or paricalcitol. Of these 42 comparisons, 35 showed that the total cost of paricalcitol was lower than the total cost of calcitriol therapy. The cost advantage of paricalcitol over calcitriol substantially increased as patients progressed toward dialysis. CONCLUSION: Cost analyses suggest that paricalcitol-treated patients have a lower total cost than calcitriol-treated patients.

Health-economic comparison of paricalcitol, calcitriol and alfacalcidol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism during haemodialysis.

This study evaluated the health-economic consequences of use of intravenous paricalcitol (Zemplar), oral calcitriol or oral and intravenous alfacalcidol for the treatment of patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism, focusing on a third-party payer perspective through inclusion of medication and hospital costs, survival rates and utilities. Cost values were based on German treatment recommendations and prices. Reference values for survival rates and utilities were based on the results of a MEDLINE search. The analysis showed a clear advantage for intravenous paricalcitol with respect to costs, effectiveness and utilities compared with treatment with oral calcitriol or intravenous alfacalcidol. Since the results were very cost sensitive with respect to selected diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) for kidney disease with dialysis, a sensitivity analysis was performed. This demonstrated first-order dominance of intravenous paricalcitol for a wide range of hospitalisation costs. In conclusion, this analysis suggested a clear benefit from the perspective of a third-party payer for intravenous paricalcitol compared with oral calcitriol and intravenous alfacalcidol in the treatment of patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism.