IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i4d10.1007_s10198-021-01275-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the cost-utility of phosphate binders as a treatment option for hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the economic evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon

    (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
    Silpakorn University)

  • Oraluck Pattanaprateep

    (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University)

  • Narisa Ruenroengbun

    (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
    Silpakorn University)

  • Tunlanut Sapankaew

    (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University)

  • Atiporn Ingsathit

    (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University)

  • Gareth J. Mckay

    (Queen’s University Belfast)

  • John Attia

    (Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle)

  • Ammarin Thakkinstian

    (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon & Oraluck Pattanaprateep & Narisa Ruenroengbun & Tunlanut Sapankaew & Atiporn Ingsathit & Gareth J. Mckay & John Attia & Ammarin Thakkinstian, 2021. "Evaluation of the cost-utility of phosphate binders as a treatment option for hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the economic evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 571-584, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01275-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01275-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01275-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-021-01275-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. Florian Gutzwiller & Alena Pfeil & Zanfina Ademi & Patricia Blank & Peter Braunhofer & Thomas Szucs & Matthias Schwenkglenks, 2015. "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 Serv," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(12), pages 1311-1324, December.
    3. Nigar Sekercioglu & Argie Angeliki Veroniki & Lehana Thabane & Jason W Busse & Noori Akhtar-Danesh & Alfonso Iorio & Luciane Cruz Lopes & Gordon H Guyatt, 2017. "Effects of different phosphate lowering strategies in patients with CKD on laboratory outcomes: A systematic review and NMA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-26, March.
    4. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    5. Blanca Gros & Antonio Galán & Emilio González-Parra & Jose Herrero & Maria Echave & Stefan Vegter & Keith Tolley & Itziar Oyagüez, 2015. "Cost effectiveness of lanthanum carbonate in chronic kidney disease patients in Spain before and during dialysis," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Nathan R Hill & Samuel T Fatoba & Jason L Oke & Jennifer A Hirst & Christopher A O’Callaghan & Daniel S Lasserson & F D Richard Hobbs, 2016. "Global Prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Nigar Sekercioglu & Lehana Thabane & Juan Pablo Díaz Martínez & Gihad Nesrallah & Christopher J Longo & Jason W Busse & Noori Akhtar-Danesh & Arnav Agarwal & Reem Al-Khalifah & Alfonso Iorio & Gordon , 2016. "Comparative Effectiveness of Phosphate Binders in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanna Elisa Calabrò & Sara Boccalini & Donatella Panatto & Caterina Rizzo & Maria Luisa Di Pietro & Fasika Molla Abreha & Marco Ajelli & Daniela Amicizia & Angela Bechini & Irene Giacchetta & Piero, 2022. "The New Quadrivalent Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine for the Italian Elderly: A Health Technology Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    3. Gabriela Ortiz, 2023. "New meta-analysis (MA) features in Stata 18: MA for prevalence and multilevel MA," Canadian Stata Conference 2023 06, Stata Users Group.
    4. William P Martin & Neil G Docherty & Carel W Le Roux, 2017. "Bariatric Surgery for the Treatment of Diabetic Kidney Disease," Current Research in Diabetes & Obesity Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 3(5), pages 1-4, August.
    5. Clarke, Lorcan, 2020. "An introduction to economic studies, health emergencies, and COVID-19," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105051, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    7. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    8. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    9. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    10. Wendy Hens & Dirk Vissers & Nick Verhaeghe & Jan Gielen & Luc Van Gaal & Jan Taeymans, 2021. "Unsupervised Exercise Training Was Not Found to Improve the Metabolic Health or Phenotype over a 6-Month Dietary Intervention: A Randomised Controlled Trial with an Embedded Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.
    11. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    12. V Boima & K Agyabeng & V Ganu & D Dey & E Yorke & M B Amissah-Arthur & A A Wilson & A E Yawson & C C Mate-Kole & J Nonvignon, 2020. "Willingness to pay for kidney transplantation among chronic kidney disease patients in Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    13. Andrew Gawron & Dustin French & John Pandolfino & Colin Howden, 2014. "Economic Evaluations of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Medical Management," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 745-758, August.
    14. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    15. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.
    16. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    17. Wei Zhang & Aslam Anis, 2014. "Health-Related Productivity Loss: NICE to Recognize Soon, Good to Discuss Now," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 425-427, May.
    18. Katherine Edwards & Natasha Jones & Julia Newton & Charlie Foster & Andrew Judge & Kate Jackson & Nigel K. Arden & Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva, 2017. "The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review of the characteristics and methodological quality of published literature," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-23, December.
    19. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    20. Nina van der Vliet & Anita W.M. Suijkerbuijk & Adriana T. de Blaeij & G. Ardine de Wit & Paul F. van Gils & Brigit A.M. Staatsen & Rob Maas & Johan J. Polder, 2020. "Ranking Preventive Interventions from Different Policy Domains: What Are the Most Cost-Effective Ways to Improve Public Health?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-24, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic evaluation; Hyperphosphatemia; Incremental net benefit; Meta-analysis; Phosphate binders;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01275-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.