Aims: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis frequently have vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) and secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), which are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, fracture, CKD progression, and death. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol (ERC) vs paricalcitol for the treatment of patients with CKD stages 3-4 that have SHPT and VDI.Materials and methods: An economic analysis of SHPT treatments among a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI was developed to estimate differences in the rates and costs of CV events, fractures, CKD stage progression, and mortality in patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol. A Markov model was developed with 1-year cycles and a 5-year time horizon from a US Medicare payer perspective with costs valued in 2017 US dollars.Results: The outcomes of the model were rates of clinical events, total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Across a 1,000-person cohort, ERC was the dominant (less costly, more effective) treatment strategy when compared with paricalcitol. Treatment with ERC resulted in cost savings of $14.8 M (95% CI = -$10.0 M-$45.2 M) and an incremental gain of 340 QALYs (95% CI = 200-496) compared to treatment with paricalcitol.Limitations: Bridging biochemical levels to clinical outcomes may not represent real-world risk of the clinical events modeled. Future real-world outcomes of patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol may be used to evaluate the model results.Conclusions: This model demonstrated favorable short- and long-term clinical benefits associated with the use of ERC in patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI, suggesting ERC may be cost-effective from the Medicare perspective compared to paricalcitol.

Background The optimal timing of treatment with vitamin D therapy for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), vitamin D insufficiency, and secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a pressing question in nephrology with economic and patient outcome implications. Objective The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of earlier vitamin D treatment in CKD patients not on dialysis with vitamin D insufficiency and SHPT. Design A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model of CKD progression was developed from the Medicare perspective. The model follows a hypothetical cohort of 1000 Stage 3 or 4 CKD patients over a 5-year time horizon. The intervention was vitamin D therapy initiated in CKD stages 3 or 4 through CKD stage 5/end-stage renal disease (ESRD) versus initiation in CKD stage 5/ESRD only. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular (CV) events averted, fractures averted, time in CKD stage 5/ESRD, mortality, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs associated with clinical events and CKD stage. Results Vitamin D treatment in CKD stages 3 and 4 was a dominant strategy when compared to waiting to treat until CKD stage 5/ESRD. Total cost savings associated with treatment during CKD stages 3 and 4, compared to waiting until CKD stage 5/ESRD, was estimated to be $19.9 million. The model estimated that early treatment results in 159 averted CV events, 5 averted fractures, 269 fewer patient-years in CKD stage 5, 41 fewer deaths, and 191 additional QALYs. Conclusions Initiating vitamin D therapy in CKD stages 3 or 4 appears to be cost-effective, largely driven by the annual costs of care by CKD stage, CV event costs, and risks of hypercalcemia. Further research demonstrating causal relationships between vitamin D therapy and patient outcomes is needed to inform decision making regarding vitamin D therapy timing.

Objectives

This double-blind randomized controlled trial investigated raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25D) with extended-release calcifediol (ERC) on time to symptom resolution in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Methods

COVID-19 outpatients received oral ERC (300 mcg on days 1-3 and 60 mcg on days 4-27) or placebo (NCT04551911). Symptoms were self-reported daily. Primary end points were raising 25D to ≥50 ng/mL and decreasing resolution time for five aggregated symptoms (three respiratory).

Results

In all, 171 patients were randomized, 160 treated and 134 (65 ERC, 69 placebo) retained. The average age was 43 y (range 18-71), 59% were women. The mean baseline 25D was 37 ± 1 (SE) ng/mL. In the full analysis set (FAS), 81% of patients in the ERC group achieved 25D levels of ≥50 ng/mL versus 15% in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). In the per-protocol (PP) population, mean 25D increased with ERC to 82 ± 4 (SE) ng/mL (P < 0.0001) by day 7; the placebo group trended lower. Symptom resolution time was unchanged in the FAS by ERC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.983; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.695-1.390; P = 0.922). In the PP population, respiratory symptoms resolved 4 d faster when 25D was elevated above baseline level at both days 7 and 14 (median 6.5 versus 10.5 d; HR, 1.372; 95% CI, 0.945-1.991; P = 0.0962; Wilcoxon P = 0.0386). Symptoms resolved in both treatment groups to a similar extent by study end. Safety concerns including hypercalcemia were absent with ERC treatment.

Conclusion

ERC safely raised serum 25D to ≥50 ng/mL in outpatients with COVID-19, possibly accelerating resolution of respiratory symptoms and mitigating the risk for pneumonia. These findings warrant further study.