Costs associated with the administration of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for the treatment of anemia in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease: a US societal perspective

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD). In addition to drug acquisition costs, the administration of ESAs can include direct and indirect costs due to the needle-based route of administration (eg, time spent by health care staff administering therapy, and patients’ and caregivers’ time spent receiving or assisting with therapy). However, a comprehensive assessment of the costs associated with the administration of ESAs is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the excess costs associated with the needle-based administration of ESAs for the treatment of anemia due to non-dialysis-dependent (NDD) CKD in the United States in 2019 from a societal perspective. METHODS: Excess costs associated with ESA administration were estimated as the sum of annual costs that could be avoided with the introduction of an oral treatment with comparable safety and efficacy to ESAs. Cost components included direct health care costs, transportation costs, and work productivity loss costs from the perspective of both patients and caregivers (as applicable). Costs were estimated based on scientific publications, governmental agencies, and the results of a recent survey of US patients and caregivers of patients with anemia and CKD. The setting of the administration (ie, at home vs in clinic), frequency of administration, and insurance type were considered. RESULTS: At the societal level, annual excess costs associated with ESA administration were estimated at $2.5 billion in the United States in 2019, based on an estimated 462,005 patients with anemia and NDD-CKD treated with ESAs. Overall, 94.4% ($2.4 billion) of these costs were incurred from in-clinic ESA administration. When stratifying costs by insurance type, Medicare-insured patients accounted for 79.4% ($2.0 billion) of total annual excess costs. The largest contributor to total annual excess costs was direct health care costs ($1.4 billion, 54.9%), followed by patient work productivity loss costs ($846 million, 33.9%), caregiver work productivity loss costs ($197 million, 7.9%), and transportation costs ($81 million, 3.3%). Total annual excess costs of in-clinic administration ranged from $2,572 per patient receiving monthly administration to $20,948 per patient receiving thrice-weekly administration, while the total annual excess costs of at-home administration ranged from $1,123 per patient receiving monthly administration to $2,109 per patient receiving thrice-weekly administration. At the ESA administration level (ie, for each ESA administration), total excess costs were estimated at $128 per in-clinic ESA administration and $7 per at-home ESA administration, excluding monitoring costs. CONCLUSIONS: The needle-based administration of ESAs in patients with NDD-CKD is associated with a substantial economic burden. The introduction of an oral treatment has the potential to result in important cost savings from a societal perspective.