Cost-effectiveness analysis comparison of etelcalcetide, paricalcitol, and cinacalcet for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Miao Liang, Sisi Liu, Xiaoxu Zhang, Lu Bai, Yaobin Fu
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis comparison of etelcalcetide, paricalcitol, and cinacalcet for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease.","authors":"Miao Liang, Sisi Liu, Xiaoxu Zhang, Lu Bai, Yaobin Fu","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2026.2717287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Secondary hyperparathyroidism is a common complication in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), which can lead to cardiovascular diseases and the risk of fractures. Calcimimetics and active vitamin D analogs are the most frequently prescribed therapeutic drugs for treating this illness.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>A decision-tree model was constructed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, with a 1-year time horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total annual costs were 20,771 yuan for cinacalcet, 34,350 yuan for paricalcitol, and 52,388 yuan for etelcalcetide. The ICER of etelcalcetide versus cinacalcet was 191,156.12 yuan per additional effective case, and 113,020.05 yuan versus paricalcitol. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that cinacalcet was the optimal strategy when willingness-to-pay (WTP) was below 95,000 yuan per additional effective case; etelcalcetide became more cost-effective than paricalcitol when WTP exceeded 110,000 yuan per additional effective case, and became the optimal strategy among the three when WTP exceeded 190,000 yuan per additional effective case.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The optimal pharmacological strategy for SHPT depends on the WTP threshold. Cinacalcet is preferred at lower WTP levels, while etelcalcetide offers superior cost-effectiveness at higher WTP.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2026.2717287","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Secondary hyperparathyroidism is a common complication in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), which can lead to cardiovascular diseases and the risk of fractures. Calcimimetics and active vitamin D analogs are the most frequently prescribed therapeutic drugs for treating this illness.

Research design and methods: A decision-tree model was constructed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, with a 1-year time horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Total annual costs were 20,771 yuan for cinacalcet, 34,350 yuan for paricalcitol, and 52,388 yuan for etelcalcetide. The ICER of etelcalcetide versus cinacalcet was 191,156.12 yuan per additional effective case, and 113,020.05 yuan versus paricalcitol. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that cinacalcet was the optimal strategy when willingness-to-pay (WTP) was below 95,000 yuan per additional effective case; etelcalcetide became more cost-effective than paricalcitol when WTP exceeded 110,000 yuan per additional effective case, and became the optimal strategy among the three when WTP exceeded 190,000 yuan per additional effective case.

Conclusion: The optimal pharmacological strategy for SHPT depends on the WTP threshold. Cinacalcet is preferred at lower WTP levels, while etelcalcetide offers superior cost-effectiveness at higher WTP.

依替卡尔肽、特泊卡尔醇和cinacalcet治疗慢性肾病患者继发性甲状旁腺功能亢进症的成本-效果分析比较
背景:继发性甲状旁腺功能亢进是慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)患者常见的并发症,可导致心血管疾病和骨折风险。石灰化剂和活性维生素D类似物是治疗这种疾病最常用的治疗药物。研究设计与方法:以中国医疗卫生体系为视角构建决策树模型,时间跨度为1年。主要终点为增量成本-效果比(ICER)。进行了单向和概率敏感性分析。结果:cinacalcet年总成本为20771元,paricalcitol年总成本为34350元,etelcalcetide年总成本为52388元。依替卡尔肽与cinacalcet的ICER为每增加有效病例191,156.12元,与特立卡尔醇的ICER为113,020.05元。成本-效果可接受度曲线表明,当额外有效病例的支付意愿(WTP)低于9.5万元时,cinacalcet是最优策略;当WTP超过11万元/个新增有效病例时,依替卡肽优于特立醇,当WTP超过19万元/个新增有效病例时,依替卡肽成为三者中的最优策略。结论:治疗SHPT的最佳药物策略取决于WTP阈值。在较低WTP水平时首选Cinacalcet,而在较高WTP水平时,etelcalcetide具有优越的成本效益。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书