Table 4.

Incremental cost-effectiveness results

Effectiveness measure	Difference in costs (C p − C c) [US$]a	Difference in effectiveness (E p − E c)b	ICER (C p − C c)/(E p − E c)	Probability that paricalcitol is dominant [%]c
Primary endpoint
iPTH level 150–300 pg/mLd	−5,814	0.23	Dominant	99.1
Secondary endpoints
≥30 % reduction in iPTH levele	−5,814	0.35	Dominant	100
≥50 % reduction in iPTH levelf	−5,814	0.43	Dominant	100
Calcium level 8.4–10.5 mg/dLg	−5,814	0.39	Dominant	100
iPTH level 150–300 pg/mL and calcium level 8.4–10.5 mg/dLh	−5,814	0.36	Dominant	100

C _c cost in the cinacalcet group, C _p cost in the paricalcitol group, E _c effectiveness in the cinacalcet group, E _p effectiveness in the paricalcitol group, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, iPTH intact parathyroid hormone

^aDifference in the total annualized drug cost between treatment groups [i.e. the cost in the paricalcitol group (C _p) minus the cost in the cinacalcet group (C _c)]. This is the numerator of the ICER. Note that the difference is the same regardless of which measure of effectiveness is analysed

^bDifference in the effectiveness endpoint between treatment groups [i.e. the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint in the paricalcitol group (E _p) minus the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint in the cinacalcet group (E _c)]. This is the denominator of the ICER

^cDerived from the bootstrap analysis

^dProportion of subjects achieving a mean iPTH level of 150–300 pg/mL during the evaluation period (weeks 21–28)

^eProportion of subjects achieving ≥30 % reduction in the mean iPTH level during the evaluation period compared with baseline

^fProportion of subjects achieving ≥50 % reduction in the mean iPTH level during the evaluation period compared with baseline

^gProportion of subjects with a mean calcium level of 8.4–10.5 mg/dL during the evaluation period

^hProportion of subjects achieving both a mean iPTH level of 150–300 pg/mL and a mean calcium level of 8.4–10.5 mg/dL during the evaluation period