PUK24 Pharmacoeconomic Aspects of Use of Erythropoietin Drugs in Patients on Hemodialysis in Ukraine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves are commonly used to report time-toevent outcomes like overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. For studies not explicitly reporting hazard ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CI), KM curves can be utilised to estimate these summary statistics for conducting a meta-analysis. Here, we validate the method proposed by Parmar and colleagues for estimating HR (95%CI) by reading the KM curves. METHODS: Ten randomised controlled trials reporting HR (95%CI) and the associated KM curve for OS were randomly A459

The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients

“…Unfortunately, it was not possible to evaluate the methodology of both previous publications and there concordance with international guidelines for CEA studies [ 19 ]. Considering only the cost of treatment; 3 cost-minimisation studies reported as meeting abstracts confirm our finding of cost saving after switch to CERA from another short acting EPO; Bezditko et al [ 20 ] estimated the cost reduction about 5–35%, based on decision tree analysis. In his pharmacoeconomic evaluation of maintenance treatment of anaemia, in Ukrainians haemodialysis patients, the average costs of CERA treatment per patient on haemodialysis were $173/week (intravenous route of administration) and $130/week (subcutaneous route of administration) and average costs for using the shorter-acting EpoB drugs were $267–194/week and $133–182/week, respectively.…”

Cost-effectiveness of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator in anemia

“…Moreover, the hospital stay of treated patients due to Hb variations was reduced by 37% 42. For the Ukrainian dialysis population, estimated cost savings were 5%–35%, depending on the route of administration 43. Kawalec et al44 performed a CMA from the perspective of the public payer for predialysis patients and found a cost savings of €262.4/patient over a 2-year horizon compared to treatment with DA.…”

“… 42 For the Ukrainian dialysis population, estimated cost savings were 5%–35%, depending on the route of administration. 43 Kawalec et al 44 performed a CMA from the perspective of the public payer for predialysis patients and found a cost savings of €262.4/patient over a 2-year horizon compared to treatment with DA. Finally, assuming that CERA achieves a market share of 40%, Walsh et al 45 calculated a possible ESA budget reduction by 15% in five EU countries based on a United Kingdom budget impact model.…”

“…Of note, the current literature query found cost-effectiveness after switching from DA to CERA in the majority of the studies analyzed. 35 , 38 , 41 , 43 – 45 A total of six studies reported cost savings, another study by De Cock 47 demonstrated substantial time savings, whereas only two authors 32 , 34 reported slightly higher costs for CERA compared to DA (median costs/patient/month of €147.5 and €105±€26 versus €134.4 and €115±€17, respectively). 32 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 41 , 43 – 45 , 47 However, it remains unclear whether general conclusions can be drawn from these observations, as many patients may also be successfully managed with a once-monthly dose of DA.…”