Cost-effectiveness of gastro-resistant risedronate tablets for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

The use of gastro-resistant risedronate, a convenient dosing regimen for oral bisphosphonate therapy, seems a cost-effective strategy compared with weekly alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France. INTRODUCTION: Gastro-resistant (GR) risedronate tablets are associated with improved persistence compared to common oral bisphosphonates but are slightly more expensive. This study assessed its cost-effectiveness compared to weekly alendronate and generic risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France. METHODS: A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was used to estimate the lifetime costs (expressed in €2017) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of GR risedronate compared with weekly alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment. Pooled efficacy data for bisphosphonates derived from a previous meta-analysis were used for all treatment options, and persistence data (up to 3 years) were obtained from a large Australian longitudinal study. Evaluation was done for high-risk women 60-80 years of age, with a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤ - 2.5 and/or prevalent vertebral fractures. RESULTS: In all of the simulated populations, GR risedronate was cost-effective compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment at a threshold of €60,000 per QALY gained. In women with a BMD T-score ≤ - 2.5 and prevalent vertebral fractures, the cost per QALY gained of GR risedronate compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment falls below €20,000 per QALY gained. In women aged 75 years and older, GR risedronate was even shown to be dominant (more QALYs, less costs) compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first economic results about GR risedronate, suggesting that it represents a cost-effective strategy compared with weekly alendronate and generic risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

CLINICAL EVALUATION OF COST EFFICACY OF DRUGS FOR TREATMENT OF OSTEOPOROSIS: A META-ANALYSIS.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost efficacy of available regimens for therapy of osteoporosis as defined as the cost time's number need to treat to prevent one fracture. METHODS: Existing meta-analyses were supplemented through electronic databases SCOPUS and PubMed between 2013 (a date overlapping the latest meta-analyses) and March 2016. Primary references included all randomized controlled trials of anti-osteoporotic drugs versus comparators using search terms "osteoporosis," "random," and "trial." RESULTS: There were 43 evaluable randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in 71,809 postmenopausal women comparing fracture frequency. Trials were similar in recruitment age (mean ± SD, 67.3 ± 8.1 years) and follow-up duration (25.5 ± 12.6 months). Cost comparisons were evaluated for a treatment strategy assuming generic alendronate as first-line therapy. Denosumab and teriparatide showed benefits in vertebral fracture reduction over alendronate at incremental costs respectively of $46,000 and $455,000 per fracture prevented. Zoledronate, recently released as a generic, would be either less expensive or comparable in cost. None of the alternate medicines were statistically better in preventing hip fractures. Teriparatide was more effective in preventing nonvertebral fractures at an incremental cost of $1,555,000. CONCLUSION: The most cost-effective initial therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis is generic oral alendronate or generic parenteral zoledronate. There is no statistically significant difference in efficacy of available drugs to prevent hip fractures. There are limited data to suggest switching drugs after sustaining an osteoporotic fracture while on oral alendronate therapy, although generic zoledronate may be considered on the basis of side effects or questions of medication adherence. ABBREVIATIONS: ALN = alendronate; DEN = denosumab; IBN = ibandronate; NNT = number needed to treat; OR = odds ratio; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RIS = risedronate; RLN = raloxifene; TER = teriparatide; ZOL = zoledronate.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax® and Fosamax® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel® and Actonel Once a Week®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk. DATA SOURCES: For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX. LIMITATIONS: We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population. CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

[Bisphosphonate use and related pharmaceutical issues II]. / A biszfoszfonátok alkalmazásának gyakorlata és aktuális gyógyszerészeti vonatkozásai II.

UNLABELLED: Bisphosphonates have basic role in decreasing progression of malignant bone processes as well as in the prevention and therapy of osteoporosis. Use of bisphosphonates is common in Hungary since 20 years. In the past decade their reimbursement has been changed several times, the use of generics decreased the price of bisphosphonates. In this paper we analyze the consumption of prescribed bisphosphonates in Hungary. DATA: Prescription data of the National Health Insurance Fund of Hungary. METHOD: We analysed the prescribed bisphosphonates between 2006-2014. We examined the type and amount of bisphosphonates used by years. After identifying therapy areas of use, we calculated the years of therapy from the DOT data. From this data we estimated the mean bisphosphonate therapy costs and costs falling for the patients. Changes in the reimbursement system regarding these medications was analysed. RESULTS: Bisphosphonate years of therapy was decreasing in osteoporosis over the 9 years examined. In oncology bisphosphonate use shows stability in drug consumption. In both therapeutic areas the proportion in therapy choice of specific bisphosphonates has changed. Bisphosphonate reimbursement costs paid by the Hungarian reimbursement system was approx. 8 billion HUF in osteoporosis and 4,7 billion HUF in oncology in 2006. Changes of the reimbursement strategy, the compulsory generic use and decreasing consumption in osteoporosis has significantly reduced the overall costs by 2014. CONCLUSION: According to our results bisphpsphonate use in oncology is moderate in Hungary, a decreasing consumption can be detected in osteoporosis, that is still expected to decrease. The use of generics reduced bisphosphonate therapy costs and also overall health care costs. In osteoporosis patients cost have substantially lowered.