Exploring the potential value of improved care for secondary hyperparathyroidism with a novel calcimimetic therapy.

AIMS

This study explored the use of a value-based pricing approach for the new calcimimetic etelcalcetide indicated for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in patients receiving hemodialysis. It used the US payer perspective and applied the cost-effectiveness framework. Because etelcalcetide is an intravenous therapy that can be titrated for individual patients, and because its utilization is yet to be assessed in real world settings, a range of plausible doses were estimated for etelcalcetide to define a range of prices. These were either in relation to the existing oral calcimimetic cinacalcet or compared to no calcimimetic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The value-based price of etelcalcetide was determined via a Markov model. This model combined data from the etelcalcetide trials and previously published cost-effectiveness models in SHPT, and allowed extrapolation of treatment effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, fracture, and parathyroidectomy. Several dosing scenarios were explored covering the dose ranges of 30.0-64.18 mg per day for cinacalcet and 1.07-3.11 mg per day for etelcalcetide. These included the mean dose from the etelcalcetide trials, the preliminary defined daily dose, and the expected most common dose in real world. An acceptable price range for etelcalcetide was assessed by comparing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios obtained with the willingness-to-pay threshold range of $100,000-$300,000/quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness analysis supported value-based prices for etelcalcetide ranging from $21.15-$49.97/mg vs cinacalcet, and $13.79-$119.45/mg vs no calcimimetics.

LIMITATIONS

There is uncertainty around what the real-world dosing will be for etelcalcetide. Another important nuance is that no studies have examined etelcalcetide effects on hard outcomes and, therefore, this modeling exercise relied on an extrapolation approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-effectiveness analysis, including scenarios to address uncertainties, allowed estimation of a value-based price range to aid reimbursement decisions in the US.