American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 40, Issue 3 , Pages 439-446, September 2002

Meta-analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous epoetin in maintenance treatment of anemia in hemodialysis patients☆☆

Work was performed at Roche Bioscience, Palo Alto, CA, and Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, CA.

Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco; Acumen, LLC, Burlingame; and Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.

Received 30 January 2002; received in revised form 13 May 2002; accepted 13 May 2002.

Abstract 

Background: Clinical and pharmacokinetic studies have shown that target hemoglobin or hematocrit levels can be maintained using a reduced recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) dosage by switching from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous (SC) administration. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of comparative studies of epoetin administered IV versus SC to assess the relative costs of these administration routes. Twenty-seven prospective clinical studies involving 916 patients were included in the analysis. The average difference between IV and SC doses of epoetin and average difference in drug costs between administration routes were determined. Results: The average reduction in dose in patients treated with SC versus IV epoetin was 48 IU/kg/wk (P < 0.001), representing an average annual cost savings with SC administration of US $1,761 ± $1,080 (SD) per patient. The difference between SC and IV doses was similar in both parallel- and crossover-design studies. A retrospective US survey showed a dose reduction of 26 IU/kg/wk (P < 0.001) with SC administration, translating to an annual savings of $946 per patient. Conclusion: This study indicates that the cost of epoetin is reduced substantially when administered SC in comparison to IV. Recommendations of current US and European guidelines, which encourage the use of SC administration, not only have a sound rationale in terms of efficacy and safety, but also have a sound economic basis. © 2002 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.

Keywords:  Epoetin, drug cost, route of administration, cost-benefit, meta-analysis

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported in part by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Switzerland.

☆☆ Address reprint requests to John Hornberger, MD, MS, Acumen, LLC, 1415 Rollins Rd, Ste 110, Burlingame, CA 94010. E-mail: jhornberger@acumen-llc.com

 0272-6386/02/4003-0001$35.00/0

PII: S0272-6386(02)00066-5

doi:10.1053/ajkd.2002.34881

Refers to article:

  • Preaching and practice: Evidence-based medicine and the accountability of nephrologists within the health care system. The implications of the findings of the cost-saving potential of subcutaneous versus intravenous epoetin therapy

    Adeera Levin
    American Journal of Kidney Diseases September 2002 (Vol. 40, Issue 3, Pages 662-663)

American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 40, Issue 3 , Pages 439-446, September 2002