The treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) imposes substantial societal costs. Expenditure is highest for renal replacement therapy (RRT), especially in-hospital haemodialysis. Redirection towards less expensive forms of RRT (peritoneal dialysis, home haemodialysis) or kidney transplantation should decrease financial pressure. However, costs for CKD are not limited to RRT, but also include nonrenal health-care costs, costs not related to health care, and costs for patients with CKD who are not yet receiving RRT. Even if patients with CKD or ESRD could be given the least expensive therapies, costs would decrease only marginally. We therefore propose a consistent and sustainable approach focusing on prevention. Before a preventive strategy is favoured, however, authorities should carefully analyse the cost to benefit ratio of each strategy. Primary prevention of CKD is more important than secondary prevention, as many other related chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, cancer, and pulmonary disorders could also be prevented. Primary prevention largely consists of lifestyle changes that will reduce global societal costs and, more importantly, result in a healthy, active, and long-lived population. Nephrologists need to collaborate closely with other sectors and governments, to reach these aims.

Background Adverse drug reactions and medication nonadherence are well-known causes of sub-optimal disease control and worsened disease outcomes in patients who are treated for type 2 diabetes. Metformin sustained release (SR) might reduce these adverse events and improve medication adherence via a simplified treatment regimen for metformin immediate release (IR)-intolerant patients. Objectives The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of metformin SR for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands, compared to the current standard of care (SoC) with metformin IR. Methods A budget impact model was built to represent the course of the disease and treatment pathway of type 2 diabetes patients eligible for metformin SR from a healthcare payer's perspective. Patients were considered eligible if they used less than 2000 mg metformin IR per day, but suffered from adverse events that might lead to therapy discontinuation, and if they were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The costs of type 2 diabetes treatment and related complications over a time horizon of 3 years were calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to show which parameters have the biggest influence on the budget impact. Results The budget impact analysis showed cost-savings of − €1,962,335 over a period of 3 years through implementation of metformin SR as an alternative to SoC with metformin IR. Savings were mostly driven by the delay of other, more expensive type 2 diabetes treatments, such as insulin. In sensitivity analyses, medication adherence and persistence appeared to have the biggest influence on the budget impact. Conclusion Metformin SR could potentially be a cost-saving alternative to metformin IR for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands, especially in patients experiencing adverse events with metformin IR. However, more research is needed to better predict the effect of using once-daily metformin, compared to multiple dosages, on medication adherence and persistence and to evaluate whether metformin SR really decreases the amount of adverse events.

BackgroundMany oncological drugs that are being used in the adjuvant setting were first submitted for reimbursement in the metastatic stage, with differences in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in both settings having potential implications for reimbursement and pricing. The aim of this study is to identify a possible trend in the cost-effectiveness for the early/adjuvant and late/metastatic stages of oncological drugs through review and case study.MethodsWe reviewed pairs of cost-effectiveness analyses of the same oncological drug in different stages for Scotland and the Netherlands. The case study in this report was directed at trastuzumab in the Dutch situation. Using a simplified Markov model, the cost-effectiveness in early and late stage of breast cancer was calculated and compared to the findings from the review.ResultsComparable studies were found for cetuximab, bortezomib and bosutinib. Treatments in the late stage were found to be more expensive per QALY by a factor ranging from 1.5 to 12. The case study provided a similar result; late stage treatment was more expensive by a factor 10. Using, for example, a threshold of €80,000/QALY, the early stage of cetuximab, bosutinib and trastuzumab are deemed cost-effective, while their compared late stage is lifted over the threshold and potentially considered not cost-effective.ConclusionICERs of oncological drugs used in different stages are more unfavourable in the late stage than in the early stage. Applying a reasonable threshold may result in early stage treatment being deemed cost-effective while late stage potentially not. Authorities should be aware of this when assessing oncological drugs and interpreting the corresponding ICERs, in the situation where oncological drugs are generally most submitted for reimbursement in the late stage initially.

Background: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been included in international guidelines as important alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, NOACs are widely used next to VKAs. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with rivaroxaban compared to VKAs in NVAF and VTE patients in the Netherlands, using data from international prospective observational phase IV studies. Methods: Two models were developed to represent NVAF and VTE patients, populated with patients from the XANTUS (NCT01606995) and XALIA (NCT01619007) international prospective observational studies. The 1-year cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban use, compared to VKAs, was explored in a population consisting of NVAF and VTE patients (base case) as well as for four scenarios with sub-populations: NVAF patients only, VTE patients only, NVAF patients with unstable international normalized ratio (INR), and NVAF patients using an INR self-measuring device. Results: In the base case, rivaroxaban saved e72,350 and gained 21 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a simulation of 2,000 patients over the use of VKAs. Ergo, rivaroxaban was dominant over VKAs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a probability of 85% for rivaroxaban being dominant and 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of e20,000/QALY. Rivaroxaban appeared to be dominant in all scenarios as well, except for the NVAF-patients-only scenario where the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was e157/QALY. Conclusions: In patients with NVAF or VTE, rivaroxaban treatment is likely to be cost-effective and a potentially cost-saving alternative to VKA in the Netherlands. ARTICLE HISTORY