An economic evaluation of sevelamer in patients new to dialysis

Sevelamer is cost effective versus calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in new patients to hemodialysis: a patient-level economic evaluation of the INDEPENDENT-HD study

“…Our findings differ from three previous sevelamer CEAs [31][32][33]. In the most recent of these, Bernard and colleagues [24] modeled a lifetime analysis using hospitalization rates and extrapolated overall survival data derived from the Dialysis Clinical Outcomes Revisited (DCOR) study [31].…”

“…In 2008, Taylor et al [32] reported a model-based CEA that utilized data from the renagel in new to dialysis (RIND) study to compare the associated costs and outcomes of treating hyperphosphatemia with either sevelamer or calcium-based binders in patients new to dialysis. From the perspective of a UK payer, sevelamer was found to be cost-effective compared with calcium-based binders over a 5-year time horizon, with a cost per LY gained of £15,508 (2007 GBP) and a cost per QALY gained of £27,120.…”

Cost-Effectiveness of Lanthanum Carbonate versus Sevelamer Hydrochloride for the Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A US Payer Perspective

“…Several previous economic evaluations have reported the benefits of LC or SH over traditional calcium-based binders, but a costeffectiveness study had yet to be conducted comparing two noncalcium binders, LC and SH [22][23][24][25][26]46]. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis to examine the cost-effectiveness of using LC compared with SH in the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in ESRD patients previously treated with calcium-based binders.…”

“…To date, the cost-effectiveness of SH versus calcium salts [22][23][24][25] and LC versus calcium salts [26] has been studied; but to our knowledge, a cost-effectiveness comparison between LC and SH has not been published. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of LC compared with SH for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in patients with ESRD who were previously treated with a calcium-based binder from the US payer perspective.…”

Cost-Minimization Analysis of Lanthanum Carbonate Versus Sevelamer Hydrochloride in US Patients With End-stage Renal Disease

“…The 2 forms of sevelamer are equivalent in terms of both efficacy [14][15][16] and cost. 17 Although several studies have compared the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer hydrochloride [18][19][20][21] or lanthanum carbonate 22 with that of calcium-based binders, Park et al 23 In a Phase IV study of the efficacy of lanthanum carbonate within a clinical practice setting, Vemuri et al 25 reported that conversion to lanthanum carbonate from other phosphate binder medications resulted in the maintenance of baseline serum phosphate levels and a significantly reduced phosphate binder dose and tablet burden. In the present study, we report a post hoc analysis of patient-level data from the study by Vemuri et al, with the objective of assessing the cost-effectiveness of lanthanum carbonate monotherapy compared with sevelamer hydrochloride monotherapy in US patients with ESRD.…”