Lisa M. Bernard

Sevelamer Versus Calcium-Based Binders for Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in CKD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES People with CKD stages 3-5 and on dialysis (5D) have dramatically increased mortality, which has been associated with hyperphosphatemia in many studies. Oral phosphate binders are commonly prescribed to lower serum phosphate. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of the noncalcium-based binder (non-CBB) sevelamer versus CBBs in CKD stages 3-5D. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS Randomized, controlled trials comparing sevelamer with CBBs were identified through MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Patient-level outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and mortality, hospitalization, and adverse effects. Intermediate outcomes included vascular calcification and bone changes. Biochemical outcomes included serum phosphate, calcium, parathyroid hormone, lipids, and hypercalcemia. We conducted and reported this review according to Cochrane guidelines. RESULTS We included 25 studies to March 31, 2015 with 4770 participants (88% on hemodialysis). Patients receiving sevelamer had lower all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.32 to 0.93), no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular mortality (n=2712; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.64), and an increase in combined gastrointestinal events of borderline statistical significance (n=384; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.08). For biochemical outcomes, patients receiving sevelamer had lower total serum cholesterol (mean difference [MD], -20.2 mg/dl; 95% CI, -25.9 to -14.5 mg/dl), LDL-cholesterol (MD, -21.6 mg/dl; 95% CI, -27.9 to -15.4 mg/dl), and calcium (MD, -0.4 mg/dl; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.2 mg/dl) and a reduced risk of hypercalcemia (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.48). End of treatment intact parathyroid hormone was significantly higher for sevelamer (MD, 32.9 pg/ml; 95% CI, 0.1 to 65.7 pg/ml). Serum phosphate values showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS Patients with CKD stages 3-5D using sevelamer have lower all-cause mortality compared with those using CBBs. Because of a lack of placebo-controlled studies, questions remain regarding phosphate binder benefits for patients with CKD stages 3-5 and not on dialysis.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Therapies for Chronic Kidney Disease Patients on Dialysis A Case for Excluding Dialysis Costs

In many jurisdictions, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) plays an important role in determining drug coverage and reimbursement and, therefore, has the potential to impact patient access. Health economic guidelines recommend the inclusion of future costs related to the intervention of interest within CEAs but provide little guidance regarding the definition of ‘related’. In the case of CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis but do not impact the need for or the intensity of dialysis, the determination of the relatedness of future dialysis costs to the therapy of interest is particularly ambiguous. The uncertainty as to whether dialysis costs are related or unrelated in these circumstances has led to inconsistencies in the conduct of CEAs for such products, with dialysis costs included in some analyses while excluded in others. Due to the magnitude of the cost of dialysis, whether or not dialysis costs are included in CEAs of such therapies has substantial implications for the results of such analyses, often meaning the difference between a therapy being deemed cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are excluded) or not cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are included).This paper explores the issues and implications surrounding the inclusion of dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of dialysis patients but do not impact the need for dialysis. Relevant case studies clearly demonstrate that, regardless of the clinical benefits of a life-extending intervention for dialysis patients, and due to the high cost of dialysis, the inclusion of dialysis costs in the analysis essentially eliminates the possibility of obtaining a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio. This raises the significant risk that dialysis patients may be denied access to interventions that are cost effective in other populations due solely to the high background cost of dialysis itself.Finally, the paper presents a case for excluding dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients receiving dialysis but do not impact the need for dialysis. The argument is founded on the following: (i) health economic guidelines imply that dialysis costs are unrelated to such therapies and therefore should not be included in CEAs of such therapies; (ii) the high cost and cost-effectiveness ratio associated with dialysis place an unreasonable and insurmountable barrier to demonstrating the cost effectiveness of such therapies, particularly since the decision to fund dialysis has already been made; and (iii) current clinical and reimbursement practices include the use of such therapies for patients with CKD receiving dialysis. We conclude that the exclusion of dialysis costs in such cases is methodologically correct given current health economic guidelines and is consistent with current practices regarding the treatment of dialysis patients.

Lack of Increased Colonization with Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci during Preferential Use of Vancomycin for Treatment during an Outbreak of Healthcare-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection

OBJECTIVE To assess whether use of oral vancomycin for treatment during an outbreak of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) was associated with increased rates of colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). DESIGN A retrospective analysis of hospital databases. SETTING The Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. METHODS We collected data regarding VRE colonization and CDI from November 1, 2000, through September 30, 2007, during which policies of preferential oral metronidazole or vancomycin treatment were implemented to control an outbreak of CDI. Four periods were considered: period 1, the preoutbreak period when metronidazole was used; period 2, the CDI outbreak period when metronidazole was used; period 3, the postoutbreak period when vancomycin was used; and period 4, the postoutbreak period when metronidazole was used. RESULTS A total of 2,412 cases of CDI and 425 cases of VRE colonization were identified. The rate of CDI increased significantly during period 2 and decreased to preoutbreak levels during period 3. The rate of VRE also increased during period 2 and decreased during the first 18 months of period 3. A clonal outbreak of cases of VRE (VanA) colonization was observed toward the end of period 3 and into period 4. Excluding the period of the clonal outbreak, there was a strong correlation between the number of cases of CDI and VRE colonization (r=0.736; P=.001) and a negative association between VRE colonization and vancomycin use (r=-0.765; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS Increased vancomycin use was not associated with an increase in VRE colonization over a 2-year period. Restriction of vancomycin use during CDI outbreaks because of the fear of increasing VRE colonization may not be warranted.

A modeled economic evaluation of sevelamer for treatment of hyperphosphatemia associated with chronic kidney disease among patients on dialysis in the United Kingdom

Abstract Objective: There is limited information regarding the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis in the UK. Using a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and final results of the Dialysis Clinical Outcomes Revisited (DCOR) study, an evaluation was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer compared to calcium-based phosphate binders for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients on dialysis. Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, incremental cost per life year (LY) gained, and QALY gained. Treatment-specific overall survival up to 44 months, hospitalizations, and resource utilization were derived from the DCOR study. Survival was extrapolated to a lifetime horizon using Weibull regression analysis. Unit costs and utility estimates specific to the UK were obtained from the published literature. Sub-group analyses were conducted based on data reported from the DCOR study for increasing age cut-points. Outcomes and costs were modeled for a lifetime horizon. Results: In the base case analysis, the use of sevelamer resulted in a gain of ∼0.73 LYs and 0.44 QALYs per patient (discounted at 3.5% per year). Total per-patient costs were higher for sevelamer, resulting in an incremental cost of £22,157 per QALY gained and £13,427 per LY gained (in £2009). Increasingly favorable cost per QALY ratios were observed with increasing age cut-points, ranging from £15,864 for patients ≥45 to £13,296 for patients ≥65 years of age. Results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding overall survival and the inclusion of dialysis costs. Key limitations of the analysis included the use of non-UK trial data for survival and hospitalizations, and the exclusion of quality-of-life impacts associated with hospitalization. Conclusions: In CKD patients receiving dialysis, treatment of hyperphosphatemia with sevelamer offers good value for money compared with calcium-based binders.

A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system in high surgical risk patients with significant mitral regurgitation

Abstract Objective: In patients with significant mitral regurgitation (MR) at high risk of mortality and morbidity from mitral valve surgery, transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip System is associated with a reduction in MR and improved quality-of-life and functional status compared with baseline. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MitraClip therapy compared with standard of care in patients with significant MR at high risk for mitral valve surgery from a Canadian payer perspective. Methods: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per life year and QALY gained for patients receiving MitraClip therapy compared with standard of care. Treatment-specific overall survival, risk of clinical events, quality-of-life, and resource utilization were obtained from the Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge REpair High Risk Study (EVEREST II HRS). Health utility and unit costs (CAD

Economic evaluation of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients not on dialysis in the United Kingdom

2013) were taken from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of alternative assumptions and parameter uncertainty on results. Results: The base case incremental cost per QALY gained was

Outcomes and costs of autologous stem cell mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF vs G-CSF alone.

23,433. Results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding overall survival, time horizon, and risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed MitraClip therapy to have a 92% chance of being cost-effective compared with standard of care at a willingness-to-pay threshold of

Impact of sevelamer versus calcium-based binders on hospitalizations and missed in-center dialysis treatments among CKD patients on dialysis: a modeled analysis.

50,000 per QALY gained. Study limitations: Key limitations include the small number of patients included in the EVEREST II HRS which informed the analysis, the limited data available to inform clinical events and disease progression in the concurrent comparator group, and the lack of a comparator group from a randomized control trial. Conclusion: MitraClip therapy is likely a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients at high risk for mitral valve surgery with significant MR.

The Authors’ Reply to van Baal et al.: “Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Should Prescribe Inclusion of Indirect Medical Costs! A Response to Grima et al.”

Abstract Objectives: To determine the cost effectiveness of sevelamer vs calcium carbonate in patients with chronic kidney disease and not on dialysis (CKD-ND) from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. Methods: A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate (1) total life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs for patients treated with sevelamer or calcium carbonate; and (2) incremental costs per LY gained (LYG) and per QALY gained for sevelamer vs calcium carbonate. Data informing probability transitions to all-cause death and dialysis inception in CKD-ND patients were taken directly from the INDEPENDENT-CKD study and were extrapolated beyond the 3-year clinical trial using Weibull regression analysis. Estimates of health utility and costs (in £2011) were derived from the published literature. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, sevelamer treatment resulted in a gain of 2.05 LYs and 1.56 QALYs per patient, an increase of £37,282 in total costs per patient vs calcium carbonate (3.5% discount), and a per-patient cost of £18,193/LYG and £23,878/QALY gained. Results were robust to alternative assumptions in key parameters; results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the mean daily dose of sevelamer, impact of sevelamer on dialysis initiation, cost of dialysis, and health utility estimates. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that sevelamer was cost-effective vs calcium carbonate in 93% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY gained. Limitations: While the model simulated a real-world clinical setting, this analysis was subject to limitations common to all decision analytic models, in that it used a mix of data sources and relied on several assumptions. Not all variables that impact real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model. Conclusions: Sevelamer is a cost-effective option compared to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD-ND patients in the UK.

Chemo-Mobilization Provides Superior Mobilization and Collection in Autologous Stem Cell Transplants but with Less Predictability and At a Higher Cost,

Chemotherapy plus G-CSF (C+G) and G-CSF alone are two of the most common methods used to mobilize CD34+ cells for autologous hematopoietic SCT (AHSCT). In order to compare and determine the real-world outcomes and costs of these strategies, we performed a retrospective study of 226 consecutive patients at 11 medical centers (64 lymphoma, 162 multiple myeloma), of whom 55% of lymphoma patients and 66% of myeloma patients received C+G. Patients with C+G yielded more CD34+ cells/day than those with G-CSF alone (lymphoma: average 5.51 × 106 cells/kg on day 1 vs 2.92 × 106 cells/kg, P=0.0231; myeloma: 4.16 × 106 vs 3.69 × 106 cells/kg, P<0.00001) and required fewer days of apheresis (lymphoma: average 2.11 vs 2.96 days, P=0.012; myeloma: 2.02 vs 2.83 days, P=0.0015), although nearly all patients ultimately reached the goal of 2 × 106 cells/kg. With the exception of higher rates of febrile neutropenia in myeloma patients with C+G (17% vs 2%, P<0.05), toxicities and other outcomes were similar. Mobilization with C+G cost significantly more (lymphoma: median