학술논문

The cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol versus paricalcitol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in stage 3–4 CKD
Document Type
article
Source
Journal of Medical Economics. 23(3)
Subject
Epidemiology
Economics
Applied Economics
Health Sciences
Cost Effectiveness Research
Clinical Research
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Kidney Disease
Renal and urogenital
Good Health and Well Being
Aged
Aged
80 and over
Calcifediol
Cardiovascular Diseases
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Delayed-Action Preparations
Ergocalciferols
Female
Fractures
Bone
Health Expenditures
Humans
Hyperparathyroidism
Secondary
Male
Markov Chains
Medicare
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Renal Insufficiency
Chronic
Risk Factors
United States
25-hydroxyvitamin D
chronic kidney disease
cost-effectiveness analysis
extended-release calcifediol
parathyroid hormone
secondary hyperparathyroidism
vitamin D insufficiency
C01
C53
C54
I11
Public Health and Health Services
Psychology
Health Policy & Services
Applied economics
Language
Abstract
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.