Publication: 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
Issued Date
2021-06-01
Resource Type
ISSN
16187601
16187598
16187598
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85102318077
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
European Journal of Health Economics. Vol.22, No.4 (2021), 571-584
Suggested Citation
Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon, Oraluck Pattanaprateep, Narisa Ruenroengbun, Tunlanut Sapankaew, Atiporn Ingsathit, Gareth J. Mckay, John Attia, Ammarin Thakkinstian 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. European Journal of Health Economics. Vol.22, No.4 (2021), 571-584. doi:10.1007/s10198-021-01275-3 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/76877
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
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
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.