Background Uncontrolled hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients commonly results in vascular calcification leading to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Phosphate binders (PBs) are used for hyperphosphatemia and can be calcium-based (CBPBs) or non-calcium-based (NCBPBs), the latter being more expensive than CBPBs. In this study, we used meta-analysis approaches to assess the cost-utility of PBs for hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients. Methods Relevant studies published prior to June 2019 were identified from PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Studies were eligible if they included CKD patients with hyperphosphatemia, compared any PBs and reported economic outcomes. Meta-analysis was applied to pool incremental net benefit (INB) across studies stratified by country income. Results A total of 25 studies encompassing 32 comparisons were eligible. Lanthanum carbonate, a NCBPB, was a more cost-effective option than CBPBs in high-income countries (HICs), with a pooled INB of $3984.4 (599.5–7369.4), especially in pre-dialysis patients and used as a second-line option with INBs of $4860.2 (641.5–9078.8), $4011.0 (533.7–7488.3), respectively. Sevelamer, also a NCBPB, was not more cost-effective as a first-line option compared to CBPBs with a pooled INB of $6045.8 (− 23,453.0 to 35,522.6) and $34,168.9 (− 638.0 to 68,975.7) in HICs and upper middle-income countries, respectively. Conclusions Lanthanum carbonate was significantly more cost-effective than CBPBs as a second-line option for hyperphosphatemia in pre-dialysis patients in HICs. However, the use of sevelamer is not more cost-effective as a first-line option compared to CBPBs.

Summary Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in kidney transplantation (KT). Antiviral‐agents are used as universal prophylaxis. Our purpose aimed to compare and rank efficacy and safety. MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL were used from inception to September 2020 regardless language restriction. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the CMV infection/disease prophylaxis among antiviral‐agents in adult KT recipients. Of 24 eligible RCTs, prophylactic valganciclovir (VGC) could significantly lower the overall CMV infection and disease risks than placebo with pooled risk differences (RDs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of −0.36 (−0.54, −0.18) and −0.28 (−0.48, −0.08), respectively. Valacyclovir (VAC) and ganciclovir (GC) significantly decreased risks with the corresponding RDs of −0.25 (−0.32, −0.19) and −0.30 (−0.37, −0.22) for CMV infection and −0.26 (−0.40, −0.12) and −0.22 (−0.31, −0.12) for CMV disease. For subgroup analysis by seropositive‐donor and seronegative‐recipient (D+/R−), VGC and GC significantly lowered the risk of CMV infection/disease with RDs of −0.42 (−0.84, −0.01) and −0.35 (−0.60, −0.12). For pre‐emptive strategies, GC lowered the incidence of CMV disease significantly with pooled RDs of −0.33 (−0.47, −0.19). VGC may be the best in prophylaxis of CMV infection/disease follow by GC. VAC might be an alternative where VGC and GC are not available.