Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25027030›Full record

Trial reportJournal of nephrology2015

Sevelamer is cost effective versus calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in new patients to hemodialysis: a patient-level economic evaluation of the INDEPENDENT-HD study.

Matteo Ruggeri, Antonio Bellasi, Filippo Cipriani, Donald Molony, Cynthia Bell, Domenico Russo, Biagio Di Iorio

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of nephrology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Matteo RuggeriFaculty of Economics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Antonio BellasiDivision of Nephrology, Sant'Anna Hospital, Como, Italy.
Filippo CiprianiMarket Access and Corporate Affairs, Genzyme, Italy.
Donald MolonyDivision of Renal Dis and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Houston Medical School, Houston, TX, USA.
Cynthia BellDivision of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Houston Medical School, Houston, TX, USA.
Domenico RussoDepartment of Nephrology, School of Medicine, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Biagio Di IorioDepartment of Nephrology, Ospedale A. Landolfi di Solofra, Solofra (AV), Italy. br.diiorio@gmail.com.
Federico II University Hospital · ITOspedale Civile di Voghera · ITThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recent multicenter, randomized, open-label INDEPENDENT study demonstrated that sevelamer improves survival in new to hemodialysis (HD) patients compared with calcium carbonate. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate for patients new to HD, using patient-level data from the INDEPENDENT study. STUDY

designCost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING AND POPULATION: Adult patients new to HD in Italy. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, TIMEFRAME: A patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale, Italy's national health service. The analysis was conducted for a 3-year time horizon. The cost of dialysis was excluded from the base case analysis.

interventionSevelamer was compared to calcium carbonate. OUTCOMES: Total life years (LYs), total costs, and the incremental cost per LY gained were calculated. Bootstrapping was used to estimate confidence intervals around LYs, costs, and cost-effectiveness and to calculate the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

resultsSevelamer was associated with a gain of 0.26 in LYs compared to calcium carbonate, over the 3-year time horizon. Total drug costs were €3,282 higher for sevelamer versus calcium carbonate, while total hospitalization costs were €2,020 lower for sevelamer versus calcium carbonate. The total incremental cost of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate was €1,262, resulting in a cost per LY gained of €4,897. The bootstrap analysis demonstrated that sevelamer was cost effective compared with calcium carbonate in 99.4 % of 10,000 bootstrap replicates, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per LY gained. LIMITATIONS: Data on hospitalizations was taken from a post hoc retrospective chart review of the patients included in the INDEPENDENT study. Patient quality of life or health utility was not included in the analysis.

conclusionsSevelamer is a cost-effective alternative to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in new to HD patients in Italy.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessRenal DialysisAgedAntacidsCalcium CarbonateChelating AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansHyperphosphatemiaItalyKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSevelamerAntacidsCalcium CarbonateChelating AgentsSevelamerCalcium carbonateChronic kidney diseaseCost effectivenessDialysisHyperphosphatemiaSevelamer

Identifiers

PMID25027030
OpenAlexW2086861577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.