Comparison of second-generation antipsychotic treatment on psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder

Abstract

Objective:

To compare second-generation antipsychotics on time to and cost of psychiatric hospitalization in Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder.

Methods:

Retrospective study using healthcare claims from 10 US state Medicaid programs. Included beneficiaries were aged 18–64, initiated a single second-generation antipsychotic (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) between 1/1/2003–6/30/2008 (initiation date?=?index), and had a medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for bipolar disorder. A 360-day post-index period was used to measure time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization (inpatient claims with a diagnosis code for a mental disorder [ICD-9-CM 290.xx–319.xx] in any position). Cox proportional hazards models and Generalized Linear Models compared time to and costs of psychiatric hospitalization, respectively, in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole vs each other second-generation antipsychotic, adjusting for beneficiaries’ baseline characteristics.

Results:

Included beneficiary characteristics: mean age 36 years, 77% female, 80% Caucasian, aripiprazole (n?=?2553), mean time to psychiatric hospitalization or censoring?=?85 days; olanzapine (n?=?4702), 81 days; quetiapine (n?=?9327), 97 days; risperidone (n?=?4377), 85 days; ziprasidone (n?=?1520), 82 days. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, time to psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole was longer compared to olanzapine (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.52, p?<?0.001), quetiapine (HR?=?1.40, p?<?0.001), ziprasidone (HR?=?1.33, p?=?0.032), and risperidone, although the latter difference did not reach significance (HR?=?1.18, p?=?0.13). The adjusted costs of psychiatric hospitalization in beneficiaries initiating aripiprazole were significantly lower compared to those initiating quetiapine (incremental per-patient per-month difference?=?$42, 95% CI?=?$16–66, p?<?0.05), but not significantly lower for the other comparisons.

Limitations:

This study was based on a non-probability convenience sample of the Medicaid population. Analyses of administrative claims data are subject to coding and classification error.

Conclusions:

Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder initiating aripiprazole had significantly longer time to psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating olanzapine, quetiapine, or ziprasidone, and significantly lower adjusted costs for psychiatric hospitalization than those initiating quetiapine.     

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs aripiprazole among patients with schizophrenia who have previously failed on an atypical antipsychotic: an indirect comparison of outcomes from clinical trial data

Abstract

Objective:

Compare long-term costs and outcomes of lurasidone to aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia in the US who previously failed ≥1 atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) based on an indirect comparison of outcomes data from clinical trials.

Methods:

A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed to compare long-term effectiveness of lurasidone to aripiprazole, including total discontinuations, relapse rates, and hospitalization rates. Cost inputs included pharmacy, mental health, and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic risks (diabetes and cardiovascular [CV] events). Effectiveness inputs were derived from an indirect comparison of aripiprazole and lurasidone using common comparators from CATIE. Cardiometabolic risks were derived from claims data analysis for diabetes, weight change and CV events, and Framingham body mass index (BMI) risk equation. Cost inputs were derived from published sources and Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and tested with sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Over 5 years, total discounted costs for lurasidone and aripiprazole patients were $86,480 and $90,500, respectively. During this period, the number of relapses per patient, hospitalizations per patient, diabetes rates, and CV events per 1000 patients, respectively, were estimated to be lower for lurasidone (0.442, 0.245, 7.29%, and 37.3) than aripiprazole (0.478, 0.369, 7.36%, and 37.8). Results were sensitive to lurasidone and aripiprazole hospitalization rates. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per hospitalization avoided, lurasidone had a 100% probability of being more cost-effective than aripiprazole.

Limitations:

The model was based on results from various comparative clinical trials. Differences in patient population and study methods may change estimates from the model. The model does not account for patient heterogeneity.

Conclusions:

Based on this model, when switching from another atypical antipsychotic, lurasidone had fewer relapses and hospitalizations with a lower incidence of diabetes and CV events than aripiprazole. Additionally, lurasidone may be less costly than aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia.     

Adherence,persistence, and inpatient utilization among adult schizophrenia patients using once-monthly versus twice-monthly long-acting atypical antipsychotics

Aims: This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU), healthcare costs, adherence, and persistence among adult patients with schizophrenia using once-monthly (OM) vs twice-monthly (TM) atypical long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic (AP) therapy.

Materials and methods: A longitudinal retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims data from six states. Patients initiated on aripiprazole or paliperidone palmitate were assigned to the OM cohort; risperidone-treated patients were assigned to the TM cohort. HRU and healthcare costs were assessed during the first 12 months following stabilization on the medication. Adherence was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first year of follow-up. Persistence to the index medication was measured during the first 2 years following the index date. Comparison between the cohorts was achieved using multivariable generalized linear models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results: Patients in the OM LAI cohort had lower inpatient HRU and medical costs when compared with patients in the TM cohort. Higher medical costs in the TM LAI cohort offset the higher pharmacy costs in the OM LAI cohort. Mean PDC during the first 12 months of follow-up was higher in the OM cohort than in the TM cohort (0.56 vs 0.50, p?<?.01). Median persistence was longer in the OM cohort than in the TM cohort (7.5 months vs 5.5 months), as was the hazard of discontinuing the index medication (hazard ratio?=?0.83, p?=?.01). Kaplan-Meier rates of persistence at 1 year were higher for OM patients than for TM patients (37.6% vs 29.6%, p?<?.01).

Limitations: This was a Medicaid sample with few aripiprazole LAI patients (5.4% of OM cohort). Medication use was inferred from pharmacy claims.

Conclusions: Among Medicaid patients in these six states, OM AP treatment was associated with lower HRU, better adherence and persistence, and similar total costs compared to patients on TM treatment.     

Changes in healthcare resource use and costs associated with early versus delayed initiation of atypical antipsychotic adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder

Aims: The study compared all-cause and major depressive disorder (MDD)-related healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs in patients with MDD treated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) adjunctive therapy early or later in treatment.

Materials and methods: Adults with MDD and antidepressant treatment (ADT) who newly initiated adjunctive aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, or quetiapine between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims database; the index date was the date of the first AAP claim. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: AAP initiated in the first year (Y1); in the second year (Y2); and more than 2 years (Y3) of first ADT use. Within each cohort, HRU and costs were compared between the 12 months before and after the index date. Pre–post changes in HRU and costs were then compared between cohorts.

Results: Five hundred and six (36.7%) patients were categorized as Y1; 252 (18.3%) as Y2; and 622 (45.1%) as Y3. AAP use was associated with significantly decreased rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalization and emergency department visits, and increased rates of pharmacy fills and physician office visits; and the magnitude of changes was largest in cohort Y1. Cohort Y1 had the largest reductions in mean (±SD) all-cause medical costs per patient (?$10,496?±?$85,022, p?=?.015) compared to Y2 (?$2,474?±?$85,022, p?=?.572) and Y3 (?$472?±?$31,334, p?=?.823), mainly due to the reduction in hospitalization. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the largest reductions in hospitalization and medical costs were observed in cohort Y1. Similar increases in all-cause pharmacy costs were seen in all cohorts. A similar trend in costs was observed in MDD-related healthcare services.

Limitations and conclusions: AAP treatment was associated with reductions in all-cause and MDD-related medical costs, primarily in decreased hospitalization. The reductions were largest among patients who initiated treatment in the first year.     

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations.

Methods:

Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained.

Results:

Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations.

Limitations:

Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study.

Conclusions:

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with anticoagulants

Abstract

Objective: The standard of care for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but oral anticoagulants are also widely prescribed. This study compared VTE-related healthcare resource utilization and costs of cancer patients treated with anticoagulants.

Methods: Claims data from Humana Database (January 1, 2013–May 31, 2015) were analyzed. Based on the first anticoagulant received, patients were classified into LMWH, warfarin, or rivaroxaban cohorts. Characteristics were evaluated during the 6 months pre-index date (i.e. the first VTE); VTE-related resource utilization and costs were evaluated during follow-up. Cohorts were compared using rate ratios, and p-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Healthcare costs were evaluated per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and compared using mean cost differences.

Results: A total of 2,428 patients (LMWH: n?=?660; warfarin: n?=?1,061; rivaroxaban: n?=?707) were included. Compared to patients treated with LMWH, patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly fewer VTE-related hospitalizations, hospitalization days, and emergency room and outpatient visits, resulting in an increase of $12,000 VTE-related healthcare costs PPPY with LMWH vs rivaroxaban. Patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly lower VTE-related resource utilization compared to patients treated with warfarin; however, VTE-related costs were similar between cohorts. The higher drug costs ($1,519) were offset by significantly lower outpatient (?$1,039) and hospitalization costs (?$522) in rivaroxaban relative to the warfarin cohort.

Conclusions: Healthcare resource use and costs associated with VTE treatment in cancer patients are highest with LMWH relative to warfarin and rivaroxaban.     

Economic and clinical comparison of atypical depot antipsychotic drugs for treatment of chronic schizophrenia in the Czech Republic

Abstract

Purpose:

The Czech Republic is faced with making choices between pharmaceutical products, including depot injectable antipsychotics. A pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted to determine the cost-effectiveness of atypical depots.

Methods:

An existing 1-year decision-analytic framework was adapted to model drug use in this healthcare system. The average direct costs to the General Insurance Company of the Czech Republic of using paliperidone palmitate (Xeplion®), risperidone (Risperdal Consta®), and olanzapine pamoate (Zypadhera®) were determined. Literature-derived clinical rates populated the model, with costs adjusted to 2012 Euros using the consumer price index. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), days in remission, and proportions hospitalized or visiting emergency rooms. One-way sensitivity analyses were calculated for all important inputs. A multivariate probability analysis was used to examine the stability of results using 10,000 iterations of simulated input over reasonable ranges of all included variables.

Results:

Expected average costs/per patient treated were €5377 for PP-LAI, €6118 for RIS-LAI, and €6537 for OLZ-LAI. Respective QALYs were 0.817, 0.809, and 0.811; ER visits were 0.127, 0.134, and 0.141; hospitalizations were 0.252, 0.298, and 0.289. Results were generally robust in sensitivity analyses. PP-LAI dominated RIS-LAI and OLZ-LAI in 90.2% and 92.1% of simulations, respectively. Results were insensitive to drug prices but sensitive to adherence and hospitalization rates.

Conclusions:

PP-LAI dominated the other two drugs, as it had a lower overall cost and superior clinical outcomes, making it the preferred choice. Using PP-LAI in place of RIS-LAI for chronic relapsing schizophrenia would reduce the overall costs of care for the healthcare system.     

The threshold rate of oral atypical anti-psychotic adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving

Abstract

Objective:

To identify, estimate, and compare ‘real world’ costs and outcomes associated with paliperidone palmitate compared with branded oral atypical anti-psychotics, and to estimate the threshold rate of oral atypical adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving.

Methods:

Decision analytic modeling techniques developed by Glazer and Ereshefsky have previously been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of depot haloperidol, LAI risperidone, and, more recently, LAI olanzapine. This study used those same techniques, along with updated comparative published clinical data, to evaluate paliperidone palmitate. Adherence rates were based on strict Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) criteria. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of US healthcare payers.

Results:

Paliperidone palmitate patients had fewer mean annual days of relapse (8.7 days; 6.0 requiring hospitalization, 2.7 not requiring hospitalization vs 17.8 days; 12.4 requiring hospitalization, 5.4 not requiring hospitalization), and lower annual total cost ($20,995) compared to oral atypicals (mean $22,481). Because paliperidone palmitate was both more effective and less costly, it is considered economically dominant. Paliperidone palmitate saved costs when the rate of adherence of oral atypical anti-psychotics was below 44.9% using strict MEMS criteria. Sensitivity analyses showed results were robust to changes in parameter values. For patients receiving 156?mg paliperidone palmitate, the annual incremental cost was $1216 per patient (ICER?=?$191 per day of relapse averted). Inclusion of generic risperidone (market share 18.6%) also resulted in net incremental cost for paliperidone palmitate ($120; ICER?=?$13). Limitations of this evaluation include use of simplifying assumptions, data from multiple sources, and generalizability of results.

Conclusions:

Although uptake of LAIs in the US has not been as rapid as elsewhere, many thought leaders emphasize their importance in optimizing outcomes in patients with adherence problems. The findings of this analysis support the cost-effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate in these patients.     

Corroboration of claims algorithm for second-line costs of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment with targeted agents

Abstract

Objective:

To refine a claims algorithm for identifying second-line systemic regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on clinical evidence and to compare costs during second-line treatment by targeted therapy administered.

Methods:

This retrospective analysis of a large US managed care database identified patients diagnosed with mCRC during 1 July 2007–30 June 2011. A claims-based algorithm was developed to identify patients with at least two lines of therapy (LOT) and the second LOT contained one targeted agent: bevacizumab or any anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Medical chart data from 92 patients were used to corroborate and refine the LOT algorithm. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the initial algorithm and refined algorithm for identification of second LOT are presented. The final algorithm was applied to claims data and two mutually exclusive second-line cohorts were examined: patients with bevacizumab- or cetuximab-containing regimens. Second-line healthcare costs were analyzed with generalized linear models adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

The PPV increased from 50.0% (95% CI?=?39.4–60.6) for the initial algorithm to 72.1% (95% CI?=?59.2–82.9) for the final algorithm. Mean age in the cohorts (n?=?569) was 61 years; 58% were men. Days of therapy were similar for the bevacizumab (n?=?450) vs cetuximab (n?=?119) cohorts, respectively: 131 vs 148 in first LOT and 123 (both cohorts) in second LOT (p?≥?0.27). Total costs during second-line treatment in the bevacizumab cohort were lower by $12,318 (p?=?0.02) and medical costs were lower by $13,809 (p?=?0.01). Monthly total and medical costs were lower by $2728 (p?=?0.03) and $3133 (p?=?0.01), respectively. Results are based on commercially or Medicare-insured patients and may not be generalizable to Medicaid or uninsured patients.

Conclusions:

Corroboration of claim-based algorithms with medical chart data improved algorithm performance. Second-line total and medical costs were lower for mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab compared with cetuximab.     

Impact of completing chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment on post-therapy healthcare cost

Background:

Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with significant economic burden. This study evaluated the healthcare cost alleviation associated with treatment of CHC.

Methods:

Health insurance claims from 60 self-insured US companies were analyzed (01/2001–03/2012). Adult patients with ≥1 CHC diagnosis (ICD-9-CM: 070.44, 070.54), initiating interferon, and with ≥2 dispensings and with ≥48 weeks of follow-up were selected. Patients diagnosed with HIV or who completed only 24 weeks of interferon therapy (a surrogate for CHC genotypes 2 and 3) were excluded from the study. Interferon users were categorized into complete and discontinued therapy cohorts. During the post–48-week treatment period, cohorts were compared for healthcare resource utilization using rate ratios (RRs), as well as healthcare costs using per-patient per-year (PPPY) cost differences.

Results:

A total of 1017 patients who completed and 953 patients who discontinued interferon therapy were identified. Relative to the discontinued therapy cohort, the completed therapy cohort had significantly fewer hospitalizations (RR [95% CI]?=?0.74 [0.68, 0.81], p?p?p?=?0.039), which translated into significantly lower total healthcare costs PPPY (cost difference [95% CI]?=?$4540 [1570, 7680], p?=?0.004) and hospitalization costs (cost difference [95% CI]?=?$3039 [1140, 5248], p?=?0.002). Non–CHC-related costs accounted for 55% and CHC-related costs for 45% of the all-cause cost difference between cohorts.

Limitations:

Claims data may have contained inaccuracies, and genotypes of patients with CHC could not be confirmed. The study consisted of privately insured individuals and may not be generalizable to the entire CHC population.

Conclusion:

Compared to discontinued therapy patients, CHC patients who completed interferon therapy and presumably had a higher rate of achieving SVR were found to have lower levels of healthcare resource utilization and costs post-therapy. The reduction was primarily in costs associated with non–HCV-related comorbidities.     

Clinical comorbidities,treatment patterns,and healthcare costs among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine in usual care

Abstract

Objective:

To assess comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia (FM) newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine (index event) in usual care settings.

Methods:

Using the LifeLink? Health Plan Claims Database, patients with FM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) were identified. Patients initiated on duloxetine were propensity score-matched with patients initiated on pregabalin (n?=?826; mean age [standard deviation] of 48.3 [9.3] years for both groups). Prevalence of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12-month pre-index and follow-up periods.

Results:

Both patient groups had multiple comorbidities and a substantial pain-related and adjuvant medication burden. In the pregabalin group, use of other anticonvulsants decreased significantly (31.6% vs 24.9%), whereas use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; 16.5% vs 22.5%) and topical agents (10.1% vs 13.2%) increased in the follow-up period (p?<?0.01). In the duloxetine group, there were significant decreases in the use of other SNRIs (13.0% vs 5.7%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (41.3% vs 21.7%), and tricyclic antidepressants (18.8% vs 13.2%), and an increase in the use of anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 40.1%; p?<?0.0001). There were significant increases (p?<?0.0001) in pharmacy and total healthcare costs in both cohorts, and a significant increase in outpatient costs (p?=?0.0084) in the duloxetine cohort from pre-index to follow-up. There were no significant differences in median total healthcare costs between the pregabalin and duloxetine groups in both the pre-index ($10,159 vs $9,556) and follow-up ($11,390 vs $11,746) periods.

Limitations:

Limitations of this study are typical of those associated with retrospective database analyses.

Conclusions:

Patients with FM prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine were characterized by a significant comorbidity and pain/adjuvant medication burden. Although healthcare costs increased in both groups, there were no statistically significant differences in direct healthcare costs between the two groups.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atypical long-acting antipsychotics for treating chronic schizophrenia in Finland

Abstract

Objective:

In Finland, regional rates of schizophrenia exceed those in most countries, impacting the healthcare burden. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of long-acting antipsychotic (LAI) drugs paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI), olanzapine pamoate (OLZ-LAI), and risperidone (RIS-LAI) for chronic schizophrenia.

Method:

This study adapted a decision tree analysis from Norway for the Finnish National Health Service. Country-specific data were sought from the literature and public documents, guided by clinical experts. Costs of health services and products were retrieved from literature sources and current price lists. This simulation study estimated average 1-year costs for treating patients with each LAI, average remission days, rates of hospitalization and emergency room visits and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).

Results:

PP-LAI was dominant. Its estimated annual average cost was €10,380/patient and was associated with 0.817 QALY; OLZ-LAI cost €12,145 with 0.810 QALY; RIS-LAI cost €12,074 with 0.809 QALY. PP-LAI had the lowest rates of hospitalization, emergency room visits, and relapse days. This analysis was robust against most variations in input values except adherence rates. PP-LAI was dominant over OLZ-LAI and RIS-LAI in 77.8% and 85.9% of simulations, respectively. Limitations include the 1-year time horizon (as opposed to lifetime costs), omission of the costs of adverse events, and the assumption of universal accessibility.

Conclusion:

In Finland, PP-LAI dominated the other LAIs as it was associated with a lower cost and better clinical outcomes.     

Pharmacological control of secondary hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis subjects: a cost consequences analysis of data from the FARO study

Abstract

Background and objectives:

Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a frequent complication of CKD with incidence, prevalence, and costs increasing worldwide. The objective of this analysis was to estimate therapy cost of SHPT in a sub-population of the FARO study.

Materials and Methods:

In the FARO study, an observational survey aimed to evaluate patterns of treatment in patients with SHPT who had undergone hemodialysis, pharmacological treatments and biochemical parameters evolution data were collected in four surveys. Patients maintaining the same treatment in all sessions were grouped by type of treatment and evaluated for costs from the Italian National Health Service perspective.

Results:

Four cohorts were identified: patients treated with oral (PO) calcitriol (n?=?182), intravenous (IV) calcitriol (n?=?34), IV paricalcitol (n?=?62), and IV paricalcitol?+?cinacalcet therapy (n?=?20); the cinacalcet monotherapy group was not analysed due to low number of patients (n?=?9). Parathyroid hormone (PTH) level at baseline and effectiveness of treatments in suppressing PTH level were assessed to test comparability among cohorts: calcitriol PO patients were significantly less severe than others (PTH level at baseline lower than 300?pg/ml; p?<?0.0001); calcitriol IV patients did not reach significant reduction in PTH level. Paricalcitol and paricalcitol?+?cinacalcet treatment groups results were comparable, while only the IV paricalcitol cohort’s PTH level, weekly dosage, and cost decreased significantly from the first to the fourth survey (p?=?0.020, p?=?0.012, and p?=?0.0124, respectively). Total costs per week of treatment (including calcium-based phosphate binder and sevelamer) were significantly lower in the paricalcitol vs paricalcitol?+?cinacalcet cohort (p?<?0.001). Major limitations of this study are related to the survey design: not controlled and lack of comparability between cohorts; however, reflective of true practice patterns.

Conclusions:

The IV Paricalcitol cohort had significantly lower treatment costs compared with patients treated with paricalcitol?+?calcimemtics (p?<?0.001), without a significant difference in terms of baseline severity and PTH control.