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.
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.
Authors: Mark Nuijten; Daniela P Roggeri; Alessandro Roggeri; Paolo Novelli; Thomas S Marshall Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Yeohan Song; Julie H Y Tai; Sarah M Bartsch; Richard K Zimmerman; Robert R Muder; Bruce Y Lee Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Varun Puri; Tanya L Pyrdeck; Traves D Crabtree; Daniel Kreisel; Alexander S Krupnick; Graham A Colditz; G Alexander Patterson; Bryan F Meyers Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Luis Manjarres; Pilar Sanchez; María C Cabezas; Marco Fornasini; Valeria Freire; Adelin Albert Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 2.655