Phosphate-Binder Use in US Dialysis Patients: Prevalence, Costs, Evidence, and Policies.

Medicare costs for phosphate binders for US dialysis patients and patients with chronic kidney disease enrolled in Medicare Part D exceeded $1.5 billion in 2015. Previous data have shown that Part D costs for mineral and bone disorder medications increased faster than costs for all Part D medications for dialysis patients. Despite extensive use of phosphate binders and escalating costs, conclusive evidence is lacking that they improve important clinical end points in dialysis patients or non-dialysis-dependent patients with chronic kidney disease. Using dialysis patient data from the US Renal Data System and laboratory information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) CROWNWeb data, we update information on trends in phosphate-binder use, calcium and phosphorus values, and costs for Medicare-covered dialysis patients. We discuss these results in the context of evidence from clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies evaluating phosphate-binder efficacy, safety, comparative effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Based on our analysis, we note a need for US Food and Drug Administration guidance regarding clinical evaluation of new phosphate binders, and we suggest that it would be in CMS' best interest to fund a clinical trial to assess whether lower versus higher phosphate concentrations improve hard clinical outcomes, and if so, whether particular phosphate binders are superior to placebo or other binders in improving these outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Sevelamer and Lanthanum versus Calcium-Based Binders for Hyperphosphatemia of Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Phosphate binders are used to treat hyperphosphatemia among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVES: To conduct an economic evaluation comparing calcium-free binders sevelamer and lanthanum with calcium-based binders for patients with CKD. METHODS: Effectiveness data were obtained from a recent meta-analysis of randomized trials. Effectiveness was measured as life-years gained and translated to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using utility weights from the literature. A Markov model consisting of non-dialysis-dependent (NDD)-CKD, dialysis-dependent (DD)-CKD, and death was developed to estimate the incremental costs and effects of sevelamer and lanthanum versus those of calcium-based binders. A lifetime horizon was used and both costs and effects were discounted at 1.5%. All costs are presented in 2015 Canadian dollars from the Canadian public payer perspective. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis were presented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for risk pooling methods, omission of dialysis costs, and persistence of drug effects on mortality. RESULTS: Sevelamer resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $106,522/QALY for NDD-CKD and $133,847/QALY for DD-CKD cohorts. Excluding dialysis costs, sevelamer was cost-effective in the NDD-CKD cohort ($5,847/QALY) and the DD-CKD cohort ($11,178/QALY). Lanthanum was dominated regardless of whether dialysis costs were included. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence does not clearly support the cost-effectiveness of non-calcium-containing phosphate binders (sevelamer and lanthanum) relative to calcium-containing phosphate binders in DD-CKD patients. Our study suggests that sevelamer may be cost-effective before dialysis onset. Because of the remaining uncertainty in several clinically relevant outcomes over time in DD-CKD and NDD-CKD patients, further research is encouraged.

Cost-effectiveness of phosphate binders among patients with chronic kidney disease not yet on dialysis: a long way to go.

Hyperphosphatemia management is integral to the management of patients with chronic kidney disease. This mineral abnormality is associated with greater costs, but so is its management, especially with the use novel phosphate binders. The economic evaluation of these pharmaceutical agents is increasingly needed to provide evidence for value of money spent and inform resource allocation. Recently, Nguyen et al. explored the economical attractiveness of Sevelamer relative to Calcium Carbonate among patients with chronic kidney disease not yet on dialysis and concluded that the former was cost-effective. The current commentary discusses the results of this analysis and sheds light on the methodological challenges of economic evaluations in this field.

Incremental cost-utility of sevelamer relative to calcium carbonate for treatment of hyperphosphatemia among pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Sevelamer is an alternative to calcium carbonate for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia among non-dialysis dependent patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although some studies show that it may reduce mortality and delay the onset of dialysis when compared to calcium carbonate, it is also significantly more expensive. Prior studies looking at the incremental cost-effectiveness of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate in pre-dialysis patients are based on data from a single clinical trial. The goal of our study is to use a wider range of clinical data to achieve a more contemporary and robust cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: We used a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for treatment with sevelamer versus calcium carbonate. The model simulated transitions among three health states (CKD not requiring dialysis, end-stage renal disease, and death). Data on transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the published literature. Costs were calculated from a third party payer perspective and included medication, hospitalization, and dialysis. Sensitivity analyses were also run to encompass a wide range of assumptions about the dose, costs, and effectiveness of sevelamer. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, the average cost per patient treated with sevelamer is S$180,724. The estimated cost for patients treated with calcium carbonate is S$152,988. A patient treated with sevelamer gains, on average, 6.34 QALYs relative to no treatment, whereas a patient taking calcium carbonate gains 5.81 QALYs. Therefore, sevelamer produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of S$51,756 per QALY gained relative to calcium carbonate. CONCLUSION: Based on established benchmarks for cost-effectiveness, sevelamer is cost effective relative to calcium carbonate for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia among patients with chronic kidney disease initially not on dialysis.

A systematic review of the economic evaluations of non-calcium-containing phosphate binders, sevelamer and Lanthanum, in end-stage renal disease patients with hyperphosphatemia.

INTRODUCTION: End-stage renal disease is associated with significant comorbidity and mortality. Among its implications, hyperphosphatemia constitutes a consistent and independent risk factor. The use of benchmark treatment, low-cost calcium-based binders declined due to a potential calcification effect on coronary arteries. AREAS COVERED: Given the increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease and the high cost of hyperphosphatemia's new primary modality, the non-calcium based phosphate binders, we set-off to systematically assess the economic evaluations of non-calcium containing phosphate binders, sevelamer and lanthanum. The study was performed based on a systematic review of the economic evaluations of sevelamer and lanthanum. The cost-effectiveness profile of the two non-calcium-containing Phosphate Binders compared to calcium-based phosphate binders depends on several factors such as future dialysis costs, utility values, age, survival, and phosphorus levels. EXPERT OPINION: The comparison between the two agents is rather inconclusive; nevertheless, current review suggests that non-calcium-based phosphate binders may yield a positive cost-effectiveness ratio in patients with inadequate phosphorus management and patient with longer life-expectancy. It is crucial that the literature is endowed with more data, specifically on survival, future dialysis costs, and calcification.

A Real-world Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sevelamer Versus Calcium Acetate in Korean Dialysis Patients.

PURPOSE: Sevelamer, a noncalcium phosphate binder, has been shown to attenuate the progression of vascular calcification and improve survival in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis compared with calcium-based binders. Using real-world data from a cohort study and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing sevelamer with calcium acetate in dialysis patients from the perspective of the National Health Insurance Service in South Korea. METHODS: Data (demographic, diagnostic, laboratory, and survival) from 4674 patients undergoing dialysis enrolled in a multicenter prospective cohort study conducted in South Korea between September 2008 and December 2012 were linked to phosphate binder use, hospitalization, and cost data available from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. After propensity score matching, a dataset comprising comparable patients treated with either sevelamer (n = 501) or calcium acetate (n = 501) was used in the cost-effectiveness analysis. A Markov model was used to estimate costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness over each patient's lifetime. Forty-month treatment-specific overall survival (OS) data available from the dataset were extrapolated to lifetime survival with the use of regression analysis. FINDINGS: Patients had a mean age of 56.3 years and were treated with dialysis for a mean duration of 67.6 months. Compared with calcium acetate, sevelamer was associated with an incremental cost of South Korean Won (₩) 12,246,911 ($10,819) and a gain of 1.758 life years and 1.108 QALYs per patient. This outcome yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ₩6,966,350 ($6154) and ₩11,057,699 ($9768) per life year and QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions regarding sevelamer's cost-effectiveness were insensitive to alternative assumptions in time horizon, discount rate, hospitalization rate, costs, and health utility estimates, and they remained consistent in 100% of the model iterations, considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of ₩31,894,720 ($28,176) per QALY gained. IMPLICATIONS: This analysis of real-world data found that sevelamer's higher cost relative to calcium acetate was adequately offset by improved survival among patients undergoing dialysis in South Korea. As such, sevelamer offers good value for money, representing a cost-effective alternative to calcium-based binders.

Cost Effectiveness of Sucroferric Oxyhydroxide Compared with Sevelamer Carbonate in the Treatment of Hyperphosphataemia in Patients Receiving Dialysis, from the Perspective of the National Health Service in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Hyperphosphataemia is common and harmful in patients receiving dialysis. Treatment options include noncalcium-based phosphate binders such as sevelamer carbonate (SC) and sucroferric oxyhydroxide (PA21). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the health economic impact of PA21-based strategies compared with SC-based strategies, from the perspective of the Scottish National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model was constructed based on data from a randomised clinical trial comparing PA21 and SC. Model input parameters were derived from published literature, national statistics and unpublished sources. Costs (price year 2012) and effects were discounted at 3.5 %. Analysis with a lifelong time horizon yielded the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost or savings per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained or forgone. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore uncertainties around assumptions and model input parameters. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, phosphorus reductions for PA21 and SC were 1.93 and 1.95 mg/dL. Average undiscounted survival was estimated to be 7.61 years per patient in both strategies. PA21 patients accrued less QALYs (2.826) than SC patients (2.835), partially due to differential occurrence of side effects. Total costs were £ 13,119 and £ 14,728 for PA21 and SC, respectively (difference per patient of £ 1609). By using PA21 versus SC, one would save £ 174,999 (or £ 123,463 when including dialysis and transplantation costs) for one QALY forgone. A scenario modelling the nonsignificant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.714) observed in the trial yielded an ICER for PA21 of £ 22,621 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case, PA21 was dominant in 11 %, and at least cost-effective in 53 %, of iterations, using a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PA21 versus SC in hyperphosphataemic patients being intolerant of calcium-based phosphate binders may be cost saving and yields only very limited disadvantages in terms of quality-adjusted survival. PA21 appears to be cost-effective from the perspective of the Scottish NHS.

Sevelamer is cost effective versus calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in new patients to hemodialysis: a patient-level economic evaluation of the INDEPENDENT-HD study.

BACKGROUND: The recent multicenter, randomized, open-label INDEPENDENT study demonstrated that sevelamer improves survival in new to hemodialysis (HD) patients compared with calcium carbonate. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate for patients new to HD, using patient-level data from the INDEPENDENT study. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING AND POPULATION: Adult patients new to HD in Italy. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, TIMEFRAME: A patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale, Italy's national health service. The analysis was conducted for a 3-year time horizon. The cost of dialysis was excluded from the base case analysis. INTERVENTION: Sevelamer was compared to calcium carbonate. OUTCOMES: Total life years (LYs), total costs, and the incremental cost per LY gained were calculated. Bootstrapping was used to estimate confidence intervals around LYs, costs, and cost-effectiveness and to calculate the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: Sevelamer was associated with a gain of 0.26 in LYs compared to calcium carbonate, over the 3-year time horizon. Total drug costs were €3,282 higher for sevelamer versus calcium carbonate, while total hospitalization costs were €2,020 lower for sevelamer versus calcium carbonate. The total incremental cost of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate was €1,262, resulting in a cost per LY gained of €4,897. The bootstrap analysis demonstrated that sevelamer was cost effective compared with calcium carbonate in 99.4 % of 10,000 bootstrap replicates, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per LY gained. LIMITATIONS: Data on hospitalizations was taken from a post hoc retrospective chart review of the patients included in the INDEPENDENT study. Patient quality of life or health utility was not included in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Sevelamer is a cost-effective alternative to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in new to HD patients in Italy.

Cost-minimization analysis of lanthanum carbonate versus sevelamer hydrochloride in US patients with end-stage renal disease.

PURPOSE: Sevelamer hydrochloride (SH) and lanthanum carbonate (LC) are calcium-free phosphate binders used in the clinical management of hyperphosphatemia in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of LC monotherapy compared with SH monotherapy in US patients with ESRD in a clinical practice setting. METHODS: This was a post hoc assessment of phosphate binder costs among US patients with ESRD who converted from SH to LC monotherapy in a previously published, 16-week, Phase IV, real-world study. Calculations of drug costs used both average wholesale price (AWP) and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). FINDINGS: There were 953 patients with available baseline SH dose data; 950 also had a recorded LC dose >0 mg at baseline, and 691 had dose data available for both SH at baseline and LC at week 16 (post hoc analysis population). Baseline demographic characteristics were similar in excluded patients and the post hoc analysis population. Mean (SD) serum phosphate levels were 5.91 (1.66) mg/dL at baseline and 5.93 (1.85) mg/dL after conversion to LC monotherapy for 16 weeks. Mean AWP costs were US$35.72 (16.89) per day at baseline and US$24.69 (8.28) per day at week 16, yielding an overall mean cost change (defined as LC cost - SH cost) of -US$11.03 (16.37) per day in favor of LC. The overall mean WAC cost change was -US$9.17 (13.64) per day. Within baseline SH dose subgroups 2400 to 4800, >4800 to 7200, >7200 to 9600, and >9600 mg/d, the mean AWP cost change ranged from US$2.78 (9.26) per day in favor of SH for the 2400- to 4800-mg/d subgroup to -US$33.15 (12.58) per day in favor of LC for the >9600-mg/d subgroup. Mean WAC cost changes showed a similar trend, ranging from US$2.33 (7.72) per day to -US$27.59 (10.48) per day. Linear regression analyses revealed that the inflection SH doses corresponding to a mean cost change of zero were 4905 mg/d (AWP) and 4908 mg/d (WAC). For the 455 (66%) patients in the post hoc analysis population who had baseline SH doses at least as high (≥ 5600 mg/d) as these point estimates, the mean SH:LC tablet ratio was ≥ 3.7, indicating a mean reduction in the tablet burden after conversion to LC of ≥ 73%. IMPLICATIONS: This real-world assessment of comparative phosphate binder drug costs between SH and LC among US patients with ESRD indicates that average cost savings with LC use increased with increasing SH doses. Conversion to LC from SH ≥ 5600 mg/d reduced drug costs and tablet burden while maintaining serum phosphate levels.

Real-world dose-relativity, tablet burden, and cost comparison of conversion between sevelamer hydrochloride/carbonate and lanthanum carbonate monotherapies.

PURPOSE: Sevelamer hydrochloride/carbonate (SH/C) and lanthanum carbonate (LC) are noncalcium-based phosphate binders used for the management of hyperphosphatemia in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The objectives of this study were to examine the dose-relativity, tablet burden, and cost difference of bidirectional conversion between SH/C and LC monotherapy in a large cohort of real-world patients with ESRD. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included three 30-day preconversion periods (days -90 to -61, -60 to -31, and -30 to -1) followed by three 30-day postconversion periods (days 1 to 30, 31 to 60, and 61 to 90); day 0 was the index date of conversion. The full analysis population (FAP) comprised two cohorts: SH/C to LC (S-L) converters and LC to SH/C (L-S) converters. The SH/C:LC dose-relativity ratio was assessed in the dose-relativity subset, defined as patients whose serum phosphate levels fell within a caliper range of ± 0.5 mg/dL in the final preconversion (days -30 to -1) and postconversion (days 61 to 90) periods. Tablet burden and phosphate binder costs were assessed in the FAP. Phosphate binder costs were based on average wholesale prices. FINDINGS: The FAP contained a total of 303 patients, comprising the S-L (128 patients) and L-S (175 patients) converter cohorts. The dose-relativity subset contained 159 patients, 72 from the S-L cohort and 87 from the L-S cohort. The overall mean SH/C:LC dose-relativity ratio was 2.27 (95% CI, 2.04 to 2.52). In SH/C dose strata >800 to 2400, >2400 to 4800, >4800 to 7200, and >7200 mg/d, overall mean dose-relativity ratios were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.57 to 1.10), 1.45 (95% CI, 1.20 to 1.75), 2.05 (95% CI, 1.75 to 2.39), and 3.24 (95% CI, 2.89 to 3.66), respectively. The overall mean tablet burden was 6.6 tablets per day lower with LC monotherapy than with SH/C monotherapy (95% CI, -7.1 to -6.0; P < 0.0001). The overall mean binder cost/patient per month was $1080.40 for SH/C compared with $1006.20 for LC, corresponding to a mean binder cost saving for LC of $74.20/patient per month (95% CI, -141.80 to -6.63; P = 0.032). SH/C >7800 mg/d was the inflection point at which conversion to LC resulted in mean cost savings. Patients requiring SH/C >7800 mg/d comprised 50% of the FAP. IMPLICATIONS: Converting patients with ESRD and hyperphosphatemia from SH/C to LC monotherapy offers potential drug cost savings and a significant reduction in the daily tablet burden, without compromising the effective management of serum phosphate levels.