Timing of parathyroidectomy for tertiary hyperparathyroidism with end-stage renal disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tertiary hyperparathyroidism associated with end-stage renal disease is characterized by progression from secondary hyperparathyroidism to an autonomous overproduction of parathyroid hormone that leads to adverse health outcomes. Rates of parathyroidectomy (PTX) have decreased with the use of calcimimetics. Optimal timing of PTX in relation to kidney transplant remains controversial. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective strategy for patients with tertiary hyperparathyroidism undergoing kidney transplant. METHODS: We constructed a patient level state transition microsimulation to compare 3 management schemes: cinacalcet with kidney transplant, cinacalcet with PTX before kidney transplant, or cinacalcet with PTX after kidney transplant. Our base case was a 55-year-old on dialysis with tertiary hyperparathyroidism awaiting kidney transplant. Outcomes, including quality-adjusted life years, surgical complications, and mortality, were extracted from the literature, and costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement data. RESULTS: Our base case analysis demonstrated that cinacalcet with PTX before kidney transplant was dominant, with a lesser cost of $399,287 and greater quality-adjusted life years of 10.3 vs $497,813 for cinacalcet with PTX after kidney transplant (quality-adjusted life years 9.4) and $643,929 for cinacalcet with kidney transplant (quality-adjusted life years 7.4). CONCLUSION: Cinacalcet alone with kidney transplant is the least cost-effective strategy. Patients with end-stage renal disease-related tertiary hyperparathyroidism should be referred for PTX, and it is most cost-effective if performed prior to kidney transplant.

A Decision-Analytic Model to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Etelcalcetide vs. Cinacalcet.

INTRODUCTION: Etelcalcetide is a novel intravenous calcimimetic for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in haemodialysis patients. The clinical efficacy and safety of etelcalcetide (in addition to phosphate binders and vitamin D and/or analogues [PB/VD]) was evaluated in three phase III studies, including two placebo-controlled trials and a head-to-head study versus the oral calcimimetic cinacalcet. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a decision-analytic model for economic evaluation of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet. METHODS: We developed a life-time Markov model including potential treatment effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, fractures, and subjects' persistence. Long-term efficacy of etelcalcetide was extrapolated from the reduction in parathyroid hormone (PTH) in the phase III trials and the available data from the outcomes study in cinacalcet (EVOLVE trial). Etelcalcetide was compared with cinacalcet, both in addition to PB/VD. We applied unit costs averaged from five European countries and a range of potential etelcalcetide pricing options assuming parity price to weekly use of cinacalcet and varying it by a 15 or 30% increase. RESULTS: Compared with cinacalcet, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of etelcalcetide was €1,355 per QALY, €24,521 per QALY, and €47,687 per QALY for the three prices explored. The results were robust across the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our modelling approach enabled cost-utility assessment of the novel therapy for SHPT based on the observed and extrapolated data. This model can be used for local adaptations in the context of reimbursement assessment.

Economic Evaluation of Cinacalcet in the United States: The EVOLVE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous economic evaluations of cinacalcet in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) relied on the combination of surrogate end points in clinical trials and epidemiologic studies. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to conduct an economic evaluation of cinacalcet on the basis of the EValuation Of Cinacalcet HCl Therapy to Lower CardioVascular Events (EVOLVE) trial from a US payer perspective. METHODS: We developed a semi-Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet in addition to conventional therapy, compared with conventional therapy alone, in patients with moderate-to-severe sHPT receiving hemodialysis. We used treatment effect estimates from the unadjusted intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and prespecified covariate-adjusted ITT analysis as our main analyses. We assessed model sensitivity to variations in individual inputs and overall decision uncertainty through probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cinacalcet was $61,705 per life-year and $79,562 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using the covariate-adjusted ITT analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 73.2% chance of the ICER being below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. Treatment effects from unadjusted ITT analysis yielded an ICER of $115,876 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the treatment effect on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In the unadjusted ITT analysis, cinacalcet does not represent a cost- effective use of health care resources when applying a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. When using the covariate-adjusted ITT treatment effect, which represents the least biased estimate, however, cinacalcet is a cost-effective therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe sHPT on hemodialysis.

Dynamics of cinacalcet use and biochemical control in hemodialysis patients: a retrospective New-user cohort design.

BACKGROUND: Cinacalcet is used to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism among hemodialysis patients. Large-scale epidemiologic studies describing patterns of cinacalcet use, effects on parathyroid hormone (PTH), calcium, and phosphorous levels, and predictors of discontinuation have not been previously reported. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a clinical database of a large U.S. dialysis provider (2007-2010) merged with administrative data from the United States Renal Data System. Among new users of cinacalcet with Medicare coverage, trends in PTH, calcium, and phosphorus were measured in 30-day intervals following cinacalcet initiation. RESULTS: Seventeen thousand seven hundred sixty-three eligible initiators contributed 111,047 30-day follow-up intervals. Of these, 56 % discontinued cinacalcet by month 4. Of those discontinuing, 76.3 % reinitiated. Mean values of PTH, calcium, and phosphorus decreased to recommended levels within 4 months following initiation. Proximal PTH levels < 150 pg/mL were associated with discontinuation: HR = 1.23 (95 % CI: 1.12, 1.36), whereas low calcium (< 7.5 mg/dL) was suggestive of an association, HR = 1.09 (95 % CI 0.91, 1.32). Being in the Part D gap period increased discontinuation risk: HR = 1.09 (95 % CI: 1.03, 1.16). Low-income subsidy status decreased discontinuation risk: HR = 0.77 (95 % CI 0.69, 0.86). Predictors of reinitiation included low-income subsidy, HR = 1.32 (95 % CI 1.22, 1.43); higher albumin level, HR = 1.23 (95 % CI 1.10, 1.36) and higher calcium level, HR = 1.26 (95 % CI 1.19, 1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial and expected declines in laboratory values occurred following cinacalcet initiation. Early discontinuation and reinitiation of cinacalcet were common and may have occurred for clinical and economic reasons.

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.