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. ResultsWe 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], 220.2 mg/dl; 95% CI, 225.9 to 214.5 mg/dl), LDL-cholesterol (MD, 221.6 mg/dl; 95% CI, 227.9 to 215.4 mg/dl), and calcium (MD, 20.4 mg/dl; 95% CI, 20.6 to 20.2 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.
Most newly dyspeptic patients in Canada are treated with empiric therapy according to symptom classification and referred for endoscopy after an average two to 2.5 treatment courses.
In CKD patients receiving dialysis, treatment of hyperphosphatemia with sevelamer offers good value for money compared with calcium-based binders.
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.
Chemotherapy plus granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) (C+G) and G-CSF alone are two of the most common methods of mobilizing CD34+ cells for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). In order to compare and determine 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% and 66% received C+G. Patients with C+G collected more CD34+ cells/day than G-CSF alone (lymphoma: average 5.51x106 cells/kg on day 1 vs. 2.92x106 cells/kg, p=0.0231; myeloma: 4.16x106 cells/kg vs. 3.69x106 cells/kg, p<0.00001) and required fewer days of apheresis (lymphoma: average 2.11 days vs. 2.96, p=0.012; myeloma: 2.02 vs. 2.83 days, p=0.0015), though nearly all patients ultimately reached the goal of 2x106 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 $10,300 vs. $7,300, p<0.0001; myeloma: $8,800 vs. $5,600, p<0.0001), though re-mobilization adds $6,700 for drugs alone. Our results suggest that while both C+G and G-CSF alone are effective mobilization strategies, C+G may be more cost-effective for patients at high risk of insufficient mobilization.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.