Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Anemia
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 189404, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/189404
Research Article

The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients

1Research Team of Pharmacoepidemiology & Pharmacoeconomics, Medical and Pharmacy School, Mohammed V University, Madinat Al Irfane, 10000 Rabat, Morocco
2Department of Nephrology & Dialysis, Military Hospital Agadir, 20450 Agadir, Morocco
3Meknes Dialysis Center (on Behalf of Moroccan Society of Nephrology), 33150 Meknes, Morocco
4IdrissAlakbar Dialysis Center (on Behalf of the Scientific Committee, Moroccan Society of Nephrology), 12470 Rabat, Morocco

Received 2 October 2015; Accepted 6 December 2015

Academic Editor: Eitan Fibach

Copyright © 2015 Omar Maoujoud et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) once monthly to epoetin beta (EpoB) thrice weekly to maintain haemoglobin (Hb) within the range 10.5–12 g/dL. Methods. Prospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis. Chronic haemodialysis patients (CHP), being treated with EpoB, were selected for two periods of follow-up: period 1, maintaining prior treatment with EpoB, and period 2, conversion to CERA once monthly. Hb concentrations and costs were measured monthly. Health care payer perspective for one year was adopted. Results. 75 CHP completed the study, with a mean age of years. Baseline Hb was  g/dL in EpoB phase and  g/dL in CERA phase; we observed a significant increase in the proportion of patients successfully treated (Hb within the recommended range), 65.3% versus 70.7%, : 0.008, and in the average effectiveness by 4% (0.55 versus 0.59). Average cost-effectiveness ratios were 6013.86 and 5173.64$, with an ICER CERA to EpoB at −6457.5$. Conclusion. Our health economic evaluation of ESA use in haemodialysis patients suggests that the use of CERA is cost-effective compared with EpoB.