Cargando…

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

Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) once monthly to epoetin beta (EpoB) thrice weekly to maintain haemoglobin (Hb) within the range 10.5–12 g/dL. Methods. Prospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness anal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maoujoud, Omar, Ahid, Samir, Dkhissi, Hocein, Oualim, Zouhair, Cherrah, Yahia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26843983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/189404
_version_ 1782409884722003968
author Maoujoud, Omar
Ahid, Samir
Dkhissi, Hocein
Oualim, Zouhair
Cherrah, Yahia
author_facet Maoujoud, Omar
Ahid, Samir
Dkhissi, Hocein
Oualim, Zouhair
Cherrah, Yahia
author_sort Maoujoud, Omar
collection PubMed
description Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) once monthly to epoetin beta (EpoB) thrice weekly to maintain haemoglobin (Hb) within the range 10.5–12 g/dL. Methods. Prospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis. Chronic haemodialysis patients (CHP), being treated with EpoB, were selected for two periods of follow-up: period 1, maintaining prior treatment with EpoB, and period 2, conversion to CERA once monthly. Hb concentrations and costs were measured monthly. Health care payer perspective for one year was adopted. Results. 75 CHP completed the study, with a mean age of 52.9 ± 14.3 years. Baseline Hb was 11.14 ± 1.18 g/dL in EpoB phase and 11.46 ± 0.79 g/dL in CERA phase; we observed a significant increase in the proportion of patients successfully treated (Hb within the recommended range), 65.3% versus 70.7%, p: 0.008, and in the average effectiveness by 4% (0.55 versus 0.59). Average cost-effectiveness ratios were 6013.86 and 5173.64$, with an ICER CERA to EpoB at −6457.5$. Conclusion. Our health economic evaluation of ESA use in haemodialysis patients suggests that the use of CERA is cost-effective compared with EpoB.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4710935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47109352016-02-03 The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients Maoujoud, Omar Ahid, Samir Dkhissi, Hocein Oualim, Zouhair Cherrah, Yahia Anemia Research Article Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) once monthly to epoetin beta (EpoB) thrice weekly to maintain haemoglobin (Hb) within the range 10.5–12 g/dL. Methods. Prospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis. Chronic haemodialysis patients (CHP), being treated with EpoB, were selected for two periods of follow-up: period 1, maintaining prior treatment with EpoB, and period 2, conversion to CERA once monthly. Hb concentrations and costs were measured monthly. Health care payer perspective for one year was adopted. Results. 75 CHP completed the study, with a mean age of 52.9 ± 14.3 years. Baseline Hb was 11.14 ± 1.18 g/dL in EpoB phase and 11.46 ± 0.79 g/dL in CERA phase; we observed a significant increase in the proportion of patients successfully treated (Hb within the recommended range), 65.3% versus 70.7%, p: 0.008, and in the average effectiveness by 4% (0.55 versus 0.59). Average cost-effectiveness ratios were 6013.86 and 5173.64$, with an ICER CERA to EpoB at −6457.5$. Conclusion. Our health economic evaluation of ESA use in haemodialysis patients suggests that the use of CERA is cost-effective compared with EpoB. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4710935/ /pubmed/26843983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/189404 Text en Copyright © 2015 Omar Maoujoud et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Maoujoud, Omar
Ahid, Samir
Dkhissi, Hocein
Oualim, Zouhair
Cherrah, Yahia
The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients
title The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients
title_full The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients
title_fullStr The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients
title_full_unstemmed The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients
title_short The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients
title_sort cost-effectiveness of continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator once monthly versus epoetin thrice weekly for anaemia management in chronic haemodialysis patients
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26843983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/189404
work_keys_str_mv AT maoujoudomar thecosteffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT ahidsamir thecosteffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT dkhissihocein thecosteffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT oualimzouhair thecosteffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT cherrahyahia thecosteffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT maoujoudomar costeffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT ahidsamir costeffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT dkhissihocein costeffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT oualimzouhair costeffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients
AT cherrahyahia costeffectivenessofcontinuouserythropoiesisreceptoractivatoroncemonthlyversusepoetinthriceweeklyforanaemiamanagementinchronichaemodialysispatients