Original Research Article

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 107-115

First online:

Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.

Cost Effectiveness of Paricalcitol Versus Cinacalcet with Low-Dose Vitamin D for Management of Secondary Hyperparathyroidism in Haemodialysis Patients in the USA

  • Amit SharmaAffiliated withNephrian Inc.
  • , Thomas S. MarshallAffiliated withAbbVie, Inc. Email author 
  • , Samina S. KhanAffiliated withAbbVie, Inc.
  • , Beverly JohnsAffiliated withAbbVie, Inc.



The IMPACT SHPT [Improved Management of Intact Parathyroid Hormone (iPTH) with Paricalcitol-Centered Therapy Versus Cinacalcet Therapy with Low-Dose Vitamin D in Hemodialysis Patients with Secondary Hyperparathyroidism] study compared the effectiveness of paricalcitol and cinacalcet in the management of secondary hyperparathyroidism in haemodialysis patients but did not report the costs or cost effectiveness of these treatments.


The aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a paricalcitol-based regimen versus cinacalcet with low-dose vitamin D for management of secondary hyperparathyroidism in haemodialysis patients from a US payer perspective, using a 1-year time horizon.


This was a post hoc cost-effectiveness analysis of data collected for US patients enrolled in the IMPACT SHPT study—a 28-week, randomized, open-label, phase 4, multinational study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00977080). Patients eligible for the IMPACT SHPT study were aged ≥18 years with stage 5 chronic kidney disease, had been receiving maintenance haemodialysis three times weekly for at least 3 months before screening and were to continue haemodialysis during the study. Only US patients who reached the evaluation period (weeks 21–28) were included in this secondary analysis. US subjects in the IMPACT SHPT study were randomly assigned to receive intravenous paricalcitol, or oral cinacalcet plus fixed-dose intravenous doxercalciferol, for 28 weeks. Patients in the paricalcitol group could also receive supplemental cinacalcet for hypercalcaemia. The primary effectiveness endpoint in the IMPACT SHPT study was the proportion of subjects who achieved a mean intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) level of 150–300 pg/mL during the evaluation period. In this secondary analysis, we estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), comparing paricalcitol-treated patients with cinacalcet-treated patients on the basis of this primary endpoint and several secondary endpoints. Costs were estimated by examining the dosage of the study drug (paricalcitol or cinacalcet) and phosphate binders used by each participant during the trial. Nonparametric bootstrap analysis was used to examine the accuracy of the ICER point estimates.


The percentages of patients achieving the treatment goal of a mean iPTH level between 150–300 pg/mL during weeks 21–28 of therapy were 56.9 % in the paricalcitol group and 34.0 % in the cinacalcet group (a difference of 23 %, p = 0.0235). Paricalcitol was also more effective for each of the secondary endpoints. When annualized, the total drug costs were US$10,153 in the paricalcitol group and US$15,967 in the cinacalcet group, a difference of US$5,814 (57.3 %, p = 0.0053). Because the paricalcitol-based treatment was less expensive and more effective, it was ‘dominant’, compared with cinacalcet, in this cost-effectiveness analyses. In our bootstrap analysis, 99.1 % of bootstrap replicates for the ICER of the primary endpoint fell within the lower right quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane—where paricalcitol is considered dominant. For all of the other endpoints, paricalcitol was dominant in 100 % of replicates.


On the basis of dosing and effectiveness data from US patients in the IMPACT SHPT study, we found that a regimen of intravenous paricalcitol was more cost effective than cinacalcet plus low-dose vitamin D in the management of iPTH in patients with SHPT requiring haemodialysis.