Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 603–612 | Cite as

A Decision-Analytic Model to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Etelcalcetide vs. Cinacalcet

  • Björn StollenwerkEmail author
  • Sergio Iannazzo
  • Ron Akehurst
  • Michael Adena
  • Andrew Briggs
  • Bastian Dehmel
  • Patrick Parfrey
  • Vasily Belozeroff
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Etelcalcetide is a novel intravenous calcimimetic for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in haemodialysis patients. The clinical efficacy and safety of etelcalcetide (in addition to phosphate binders and vitamin D and/or analogues [PB/VD]) was evaluated in three phase III studies, including two placebo-controlled trials and a head-to-head study versus the oral calcimimetic cinacalcet.

Objective

The objective of this study was to develop a decision-analytic model for economic evaluation of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet.

Methods

We developed a life-time Markov model including potential treatment effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, fractures, and subjects’ persistence. Long-term efficacy of etelcalcetide was extrapolated from the reduction in parathyroid hormone (PTH) in the phase III trials and the available data from the outcomes study in cinacalcet (EVOLVE trial). Etelcalcetide was compared with cinacalcet, both in addition to PB/VD. We applied unit costs averaged from five European countries and a range of potential etelcalcetide pricing options assuming parity price to weekly use of cinacalcet and varying it by a 15 or 30% increase.

Results

Compared with cinacalcet, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of etelcalcetide was €1,355 per QALY, €24,521 per QALY, and €47,687 per QALY for the three prices explored. The results were robust across the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Our modelling approach enabled cost-utility assessment of the novel therapy for SHPT based on the observed and extrapolated data. This model can be used for local adaptations in the context of reimbursement assessment.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Financial support for this study was provided by Amgen. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.

Conflict of interest

SI, MA, RA, PP and AB contributed to the development of the study through a consulting agreement with Amgen. BS, BD and VB are employed by Amgen and holders of Amgen stock and/or stock options.

Author contributions

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval for the version to be published. The authors thank the Amgen biostatistical department for the support provided. Furthermore, we thank Kirsten Westerhout for valuable feedback within the later stages of the model development.

Supplementary material

40273_2017_605_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (645 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 644 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Goodman WG. The consequences of uncontrolled secondary hyperparathyroidism and its treatment in chronic kidney disease. Semin Dial. 2004;17(3):209–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jadoul M, Albert JM, Akiba T, et al. Incidence and risk factors for hip or other bone fractures among hemodialysis patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Kidney Int. 2006;70:1358–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Block GA, Klassen PS, Lazarus JM, et al. Mineral metabolism, mortality, and morbidity in maintenance hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15:2208–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Floege J, Kim J, Ireland E, Chazot C, Drueke T, de Francisco A, Kronenberg F, Marcelli D, Passlick-Deetjen J, Schernthaner G, Fouqueray B, Wheeler DC, Investigators ARO. Serum iPTH, calcium and phosphate, and the risk of mortality in a European haemodialysis population. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(6):1948–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Natoli JL, Boer R, Nathanson BH, Miller RM, Chiroli S, Goodman WG, Belozeroff V. Is there an association between elevated or low serum levels of phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and calcium and mortality in patients with end stage renal disease? A meta-analysis. BMC Nephrol. 2013;14:88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hedgeman E, Lipworth L, Lowe K, Saran R, Do T, Fryzek J. International burden of chronic kidney disease and secondary hyperparathyroidism: a systematic review of the literature and available data. Int J Nephrol. 2015;2015:184321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    KDIGO group. KDIGO 2017 clinical practice guideline update for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease—mineral and bone disorder. Kidney Int Suppl. 2017;7(1):1–59.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hauber B, Caloyeras J, Posner J, Brommage D, Belozeroff V, Cooper K. Hemodialysis patients’ preferences for the management of secondary hyperparathyroidism. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18(1):254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Block GA, Bushinsky DA, Cunningham J, Drueke TB, Ketteler M, Kewalramani R, Martin KJ, Mix TC, Moe SM, Patel UD, Silver J, Spiegel DM, Sterling L, Walsh L, Chertow GM. Effect of etelcalcetide vs placebo on serum parathyroid hormone in patients receiving hemodialysis with secondary hyperparathyroidism: two randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 2017;317(2):146–55.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19456.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Block GA, Bushinsky DA, Cheng S, Cunningham J, Dehmel B, Drueke TB, Ketteler M, Kewalramani R, Martin KJ, Moe SM, Patel UD, Silver J, Sun Y, Wang H, Chertow GM. Effect of etelcalcetide vs cinacalcet on serum parathyroid hormone in patients receiving hemodialysis with secondary hyperparathyroidism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(2):156–64.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19468.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siebert U, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):690–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluations publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belozeroff V, Chertow GM, Graham CN, Dehmel B, Parfrey PS, Briggs AH. Economic evaluation of cinacalcet in the United States: the EVOLVE trial. Value Health. 2015;18(8):1079–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, Mealing S, Roome C, Snaith A, D’Souza R, Welch K, Stein K. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet for secondary hyperparathyroidism in end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(18):iii, xi–xiii, 1–167.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vemer P, Corro Ramos P, van Voorn GAK, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. AdViSHE: a validation-assessment tool of health-economic models for decision makers and model users. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34:349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barendregt JJ. The half-cycle correction: banish rather than explain it. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(4):500–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naimark DM, Kabboul NN, Krahn MD. Response to “the life table method of half-cycle correction: getting it right”. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(3):286–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evolve Trial Investigators, Chertow GM, Block GA, Correa-Rotter R, Drueke TB, Floege J, Goodman WG, Herzog CA, Kubo Y, London GM, Mahaffey KW, Mix TC, Moe SM, Trotman ML, Wheeler DC, Parfrey PS. Effect of cinacalcet on cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing dialysis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(26):2482–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moe SM, et al. Effects of cinacalcet on fracture events in patients receiving hemodialysis: the EVOLVE trial. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(6):1466–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boer R, Lalla AM, Belozeroff V. Cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet in secondary hyperparathyroidism in the United States. J Med Econ. 2012;15(3):509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reams BD, et al. Dynamics of cinacalcet use and biochemical control in hemodialysis patients: a retrospective new-user cohort design. BMC Nephrol. 2015;16:175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Briggs AH, Parfrey PS, Khan N, Tseng S, Dehmel B, Kubo Y, Chertow GM, Belozeroff V. Analyzing health-related quality of life in the EVOLVE trial: the joint impact of treatment and clinical events. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(8):965–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stollenwerk B, et al. Uncertainty assessment of input parameters for economic evaluation: Gauss’s error propagation, an alternative to established methods. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(3):304–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iannazzo S, Carsi M, Chiroli S. A cost-utility analysis of cinacalcet in secondary hyperparathyroidism in five European countries. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(2):127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nuijten M, Roggeri DP, Roggeri A, Novelli P, Marshall TS. Health economic evaluation of paricalcitol(®) versus cinacalcet + calcitriol (oral) in Italy. Clin Drug Investig. 2015;35(4):229–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eandi M, Pradelli L, Iannazzo S, Chiroli S, Pontoriero G. Economic evaluation of cinacalcet in the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in Italy. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(11):1041–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ray JA, Borker R, Barber B, Valentine WJ, Belozeroff V, Palmer AJ. Cost-effectiveness of early versus late cinacalcet treatment in addition to standard care for secondary renal hyperparathyroidism in the USA. Value Health. 2008;11(5):800–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    St Peter WL, Fan Q, Weinhandl E, Liu J. Economic evaluation of sevelamer versus calcium-based phosphate binders in hemodialysis patients: a secondary analysis using centers for Medicare & Medicaid services data. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(12):1954–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tripepi G, Heinze G, Jager KJ, Stel VS, Dekker FW, Zoccali C. Lag-censoring analysis: lights and shades. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30(5):700–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Belozeroff V, Cooper K, Hess G, Chang CL. Healthcare use and costs before and after parathyroidectomy in patients on dialysis. BMC HSR. 2013;13(1):248.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grima DT, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies for chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis: a case for excluding dialysis costs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(11):981–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gutzwiller FS, et al. Cost effectiveness of sucroferric oxyhydroxide compared with sevelamer carbonate in the treatment of hyperphosphataemia in patients receiving dialysis, from the perspective of the National Health Service in Scotland. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(12):1311–24.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ruggeri M, et al. 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. J Nephrol. 2015;28(5):593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amgen Europe (GmbH)ZugSwitzerland
  2. 2.Helmholtz Zentrum MünchenNeuherbergGermany
  3. 3.SIHS Health Economics ConsultingTurinItaly
  4. 4.BresMedSheffieldUK
  5. 5.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  6. 6.Datalytics Pty LtdKingstonAustralia
  7. 7.Health Economics and Health Technology AssessmentUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  8. 8.Amgen Inc.Thousand OaksUSA
  9. 9.Memorial UniversitySt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations