Budget impact of secondary hyperparathyroidism treatment in chronic kidney disease in an Ecuadorian social security hospital.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a disorder with high morbidity and mortality worldwide whose complications generate multiple costs. In Ecuador, only a few healthcare institutions have implemented management protocols aimed to reduce costs and to improve the quality of life of patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term (1-year) and long-term (5-year) costs and savings in the management of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) of hemodialyzed CKD patients by comparing calcitriol and paricalcitol in a large social security hospital in Quito, Ecuador.

METHODS: The estimation model assessed the resources used in the management of SHPT by comparing prospectively the cost savings within 1-year and 5-year time horizon with calcitriol and paricalcitol. Hospitalization, erythropoietin (EPO), treatment doses, intravenous iron consumption, and medical supplies were estimated according international references, based on the initial parathormone level (iPTH) of patients. The Ecuadorian National Reference costs (2014-2015) and institutional costs were used to calculate treatment costs. A statistical sensitivity analysis was also performed.

RESULTS: The study was based on data from 354 patients of whom 147 (41.4 %) had a value of iPTH in the range 300-600 pg/ml, 45 (12.8 %) in the range 601-800 pg/ml, and 162 (45.7 %) over 800 pg/ml. The 1-year estimated costs per patient for calcitriol and paricalcitol, respectively, were: medication, 63.88 USD and 1,123.44 USD; EPO, 19,522.95 USD and 16,478 USD; intravenous iron 143.21 USD and 187.76 USD. Yearly hospitalization costs per patient were 11,647.99 USD with calcitriol and 8,019.41 USD with paricalcitol. Total yearly costs per patient amounted to 31,378.02 USD with calcitriol and 25,809.50 USD with paricalcitol. Total savings using paricalcitol were 5,568.52 USD per patient compared with calcitriol. The 5-year cumulative medication costs were 319 USD for calcitriol and 2,403 USD for paricalcitol; EPO with calcitriol was 97,615 USD and with paricalcitol 82,394 USD; intravenous iron with calcitriol was 716 USD and paricalcitol 939 USD. Hospitalization costs for patients with calcitriol and paricalcitol were 43,095 USD and 62,595 USD, respectively. Total savings using paricalcitol amounted 32,414 USD per patient compared with calcitriol.

CONCLUSIONS: Paricalcitol use generated more cost savings than calcitriol after 1 and 5 years.