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

IF 2.2 Q3 HEMATOLOGY Anemia Pub Date : 2015-12-30 DOI:10.1155/2015/189404

O. Maoujoud, S. Ahid, H. Dkhissi, Z. Oualim, Y. Cherrah

{"title":"The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients","authors":"O. Maoujoud, S. Ahid, H. Dkhissi, Z. Oualim, Y. Cherrah","doi":"10.1155/2015/189404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46055,"journal":{"name":"Anemia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2015/189404","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anemia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/189404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Abstract

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.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

慢性血液透析患者每月1次连续使用红细胞生成受体激活剂与每周3次生成素治疗贫血的成本-效果比较

介绍。本研究的目的是比较每月1次的持续促红细胞生成素受体激活剂(CERA)和每周3次的促红细胞生成素β (EpoB)的成本-效果，以维持血红蛋白(Hb)在10.5-12 g/dL范围内。方法。前瞻性队列研究及成本-效果分析。选择接受EpoB治疗的慢性血液透析患者(CHP)进行两期随访:第一期，维持先前的EpoB治疗，第二期，转换为CERA每月一次。每月测量Hb浓度和成本。采用为期一年的医疗保健支付者视角。结果:75例CHP完成研究，平均年龄52.9±14.3岁。EpoB期基线Hb为11.14±1.18 g/dL, CERA期基线Hb为11.46±0.79 g/dL;我们观察到成功治疗的患者比例(Hb在推荐范围内)显著增加，65.3%对70.7%，p: 0.008，平均有效性增加4%(0.55对0.59)。平均成本效益比为6013.86美元和5173.64美元，ICER CERA与EpoB的成本效益比为- 6457.5美元。结论。我们对血液透析患者使用ESA的健康经济评估表明，与EpoB相比，使用CERA具有成本效益。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Anemia HEMATOLOGY-

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

3.40%

发文量

审稿时长

18 weeks

期刊介绍： Anemia is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies on all types of anemia. Articles focusing on patient care, health systems, epidemiology, and animal models will be considered, among other relevant topics. Affecting roughly one third of the world’s population, anemia is a major public health concern. The journal aims to facilitate the exchange of research addressing global health and mortality relating to anemia and associated diseases.