ABSTRACT
Introduction: End-stage renal disease is associated with significant comorbidity and mortality. Among its implications, hyperphosphatemia constitutes a consistent and independent risk factor. The use of benchmark treatment, low-cost calcium-based binders declined due to a potential calcification effect on coronary arteries.
Areas covered: Given the increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease and the high cost of hyperphosphatemia’s new primary modality, the non-calcium based phosphate binders, we set-off to systematically assess the economic evaluations of non-calcium containing phosphate binders, sevelamer and lanthanum. The study was performed based on a systematic review of the economic evaluations of sevelamer and lanthanum. The cost-effectiveness profile of the two non-calcium-containing Phosphate Binders compared to calcium-based phosphate binders depends on several factors such as future dialysis costs, utility values, age, survival, and phosphorus levels.
Expert opinion: The comparison between the two agents is rather inconclusive; nevertheless, current review suggests that non-calcium-based phosphate binders may yield a positive cost-effectiveness ratio in patients with inadequate phosphorus management and patient with longer life-expectancy. It is crucial that the literature is endowed with more data, specifically on survival, future dialysis costs, and calcification.
Article highlights
End-stage renal diseases rates are rising.
Hyperphosphatemia, stemming out of end-stage renal disease, comprises an independent risk factor.
Rational decision-making embeds the notion of economic evaluations.
We assess the economic evaluations of sevelamer and lanthanum.
Results are pertinent to several factors such as future dialysis costs, utility values, age, survival, and phosphorus levels.
This box summarizes key points contained in the article.
Declaration of interest
The author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Reviewer disclosures
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.