Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide-to-alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate for osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture in Belgium. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide followed by alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture, from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab is reimbursed in Belgium since December 2021. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and to teriparatide-to-alendronate over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between five different health states every 6 months based on fracture risks or death. The model was populated with Belgium-specific epidemiological and cost data, where available. The fracture risk reduction of romosozumab treatment was collated from the ARCH study, and from a published network meta-analysis. Costs were included from a healthcare perspective (NIHDI). Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), reported in Euro (€) 2022. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: Romosozumab-to-alendronate was associated with 0.12 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €2314 compared to alendronate monotherapy, resulting in an ICER of €19,978. Compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate, romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be dominant, with higher QALYs and lower costs. The base-case results were robust to uncertainty in the input parameters when conducting the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide followed by alendronate for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

Cost-consequence analysis of continuous denosumab therapy for osteoporosis treatment in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: Insurance reimbursement provisions in South Korea limit osteoporosis medication availability for patients with T-scores exceeding - 2.5. This study aimed to evaluate the financial impact and fracture prevention of continuous denosumab therapy until a T-score>-2.0 (Dmab-C strategy), versus discontinuation of denosumab after reaching T-score>-2.5 (Dmab-D strategy) in osteoporosis patients. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis from a Korean healthcare system perspective was performed using a newly developed Markov model. The incidence of vertebral and non-vertebral fracture, fracture-related deaths, drug costs, and fracture-treatment costs were estimated and compared between Dmab-C and Dmab-D strategy over a lifetime in eligible patients aged 55 years. RESULTS: Base-case analysis revealed that Dmab-C prevented 32.21 vertebral fracture (VF) and 12.43 non-VF events per 100 patients over a lifetime, while reducing 1.29 fracture-related deaths. Lifetime direct healthcare cost saving per patient was KRW 1,354,655 if Dmab-C replaces Dmab-D. When productivity losses were considered, Dmab-C saved KRW 29,025,949 per patient compared to Dmab-D. The additional treatment costs of Dmab-C could be offset by the higher subsequent treatment costs and fracture treatment costs of Dmab-D. The sensitivity analysis showed consistent patterns with results of the base-case analysis. CONCLUSION: Continuous treatment using denosumab until osteoporosis patients achieve and maintain a T-score of -2.0 would provide greater clinical and economic benefits in terms of fracture prevention and reduced mortality risks compared to outcomes from discontinuing treatment at a T-score of -2.5 or above. This new treatment strategy would effectively lower the risk of fractures and fracture-related mortality, ultimately leading to lower medical expenses.

Budget impact of increasing uptake of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Malaysia.

This study evaluated the financial impact of increasing denosumab usage for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis over a 5-year period from the Malaysian healthcare provider's perspective. A gradual moderate increase in denosumab uptake would have a minimal budget impact, with potential savings in fracture treatment expenses. Optimizing denosumab usage could be a cost-effective and potentially affordable strategy to alleviate the economic burden of osteoporosis in Malaysia. PURPOSE: The study aimed to evaluate the budget impact of increasing the uptake of denosumab for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Malaysia. METHODS: A Markov budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial impact of osteoporosis treatment. We modelled a scenario in which the uptake of denosumab would increase each year compared with a static scenario. A 5-year time horizon from the perspective of a Malaysian MOH healthcare provider was used. Model inputs were based on Malaysian sources where available. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the modelled results. RESULTS: An increase in denosumab uptake of 8% per year over a 5-year time horizon would result in an additional budget impact, from MYR 0.26 million (USD 0.06 million) in the first year to MYR 3.25 million (USD 0.78 million) in the fifth year. When expressed as cost per-member-per-month (PMPM), these were less than MYR 0.01 across all five years of treatment. In sensitivity analyses, the acquisition cost of denosumab and medication persistence had the largest impact on the budget. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of a Malaysian MOH healthcare provider, moderately increasing uptake of denosumab would have a minimal additional budget impact, partially offset by savings in fracture treatment costs. Increasing the use of denosumab appears affordable to reduce the economic burden of osteoporosis in Malaysia.

Cost-effectiveness of weekly gastro-resistant risedronate 35 mg, compared with weekly alendronate 70 mg tablets, in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain.

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) with weekly gastro-resistant risedronate 35 mg gastro-resistant tablets (RIS-GR), compared with weekly alendronate 70 mg tablets (ALN) in Spain. Methods: A probabilistic analysis (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) was performed with a time horizon of 5 years, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. The bone fracture probabilities were obtained from a cohort study of 3614 women from USA with PMO treated with RIS-GR (1807) or ALN (1807) (Thomasius, 2022). The pharmacological cost and the cost of fractures were obtained from Spanish sources (€ 2022). The utilities of patients with and without fracture (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from the medical literature. Results: Compared with ALN, treatment with RIS-GR can avoid 79 fractures (between 75 and 82) every 1000 patients treated, and 0.0119 QALYs would be gained (between 0.0098 and 0.0140) per patient. Additionally, GR-RIS would generate a cost saving per patient of €1994 (€1437-2904) with a probability of 99.7%. The scenario analyses confirmed the stability of the base case results. Conclusion: According to this study, RIS-GR would be the dominant treatment (lower costs with QALY gain) compared with ALN.

Economic evaluation of four treatment strategies for postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis and a recent fracture in mainland China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who have a recent fracture are at very high risk of fracture, and this study finds that stratified treatment based on fracture risk would be a cost-effective treatment option for this population. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four anti-osteoporosis medications (denosumab, zoledronate, teriparatide, and alendronate) for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in mainland China, using a stratified treatment strategy recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE). METHODS: A microsimulation Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the four treatments in postmenopausal osteoporotic patients of different ages (65, 70, 75, and 80 years), with a recent fracture from the Chinese healthcare perspective. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represent the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of model findings. RESULTS: Alendronate was dominated by denosumab-to-alendronate and zoledronate at all ages examined, indicating that the costs of the two drugs were lower, but QALYs was greater. However, teriparatide-to-alendronate yielded an ICER of $76,432.07/ QALY, compared with alendronate at age 65, which exceeded the pre-determined willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/ QALY. The results were similar at other ages. The DSA showed that the most sensitive parameters were drug efficacy for vertebral and wrist fractures, the relative risk of vertebral fractures, and the persistence of the drugs. The PSA showed that zoledronate had a 100% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/ QALY. CONCLUSION: Stratified treatment based on very high fracture risk is more cost-effective than conventional pills in mainland China. Among the stratified treatments, zoledronate is the optimal option.

Comparability of Osteoporosis Treatment Groups Among Female Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States.

It is often difficult to obtain valid estimates of comparative treatment effectiveness and safety owing to differences across patient populations taking different medications in the real world. One approach for assessing comparability between treatment groups in effectiveness studies is to use negative control outcomes (NCOs). NCOs share similar sources of bias with the primary outcomes but have no plausible causal relationship to the treatment of interest. Observing differences in the risk of NCOs thus provides evidence for residual confounding between groups. This retrospective study assessed the comparability of postmenopausal women, treated with osteoporosis medications with various mechanisms of action such as denosumab (receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand [RANKL] inhibitor), zoledronic acid (bisphosphonate derivative), or oral bisphosphonates including alendronate. Administrative claims data were extracted from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Chronic Condition Warehouse database (May 2010-December 2016). Propensity scores were used to match denosumab patients 1:1 to comparators. Four nonfracture NCOs and three early fracture NCOs (before substantial biologic effects of treatment would be expected) were assessed over 1-year and 3-month follow-up periods, respectively. According to comparability decision rules established a priori, patients initiating denosumab were comparable to those initiating zoledronic acid or alendronate, irrespective of prior osteoporosis treatment experience. Among new users, new switchers, and in the historical fracture subgroup, no meaningful differences were observed in the cumulative incidence of the seven NCOs comparing denosumab to zoledronic acid. This empirical examination can assist in the selection of appropriate comparator groups for future comparability research using real-world data. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Abaloparatide (ABL) significantly increases bone mineral density in men with osteoporosis similar to what was reported in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost effectiveness of sequential treatment with ABL followed by alendronate (ALN) in men at high fracture risk was compared to relevant alternative treatments. METHODS: A Markov-based microsimulation model based on a lifetime US healthcare decision maker perspective was developed to evaluate the cost (expressed in US$2021) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained of sequential ABL/ALN. Comparators were sequential treatment unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Discount rates of 3% were used. Consistent with practice guidelines, patients received 18 months of ABL or TPTD followed by ALN for 5 years, or 5 years of ALN monotherapy. Analyses were conducted in high-risk men aged over 50 years defined as having a bone mineral density T-score ≤-2.5 and a recent fracture. Time-specific risk of subsequent fracture after a recent fracture, incremental costs up to 5 years following fractures, real-world medication adherence, and mostly US men-specific data were included in the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: Over the full age range, sequential ABL/ALN led to more QALYs for lower costs than sequential unbranded TPTD/ALN, while no treatment was dominated (more QALYs, lower costs) by ALN monotherapy. The costs per QALY gained of sequential ABL/ALN were lower than the US threshold of US$150,000 versus generic ALN monotherapy. The probabilities that sequential ABL/ALN was cost effective compared to ALN monotherapy were estimated at 51% in men aged 50 years and between 88 and 90% in those aged ≥ 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential therapy using ABL/ALN may be cost effective compared with generic ALN monotherapy in US men aged ≥ 50 years at high fracture risk, especially in those aged ≥ 60 years. Unbranded TPTD/ALN and no treatment were dominated interventions (less QALY, more costs) compared with ABL/ALN or ALN monotherapy.

Cost Effectiveness Analyses of Interventions for Osteoporosis in Men: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative for identifying and managing osteoporosis in men have increased substantially. With the approval of agents to treat men with osteoporosis, more economic evaluations have been conducted to assess the potential economic benefits of these interventions. Despite this concern, there is no specific overview of cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of osteoporosis in men. OBJECTIVES: This study aims (1) to systematically review economic evaluations of interventions for osteoporosis in men; (2) to critically appraise the quality of included studies and the source of model input data; and (3) to investigate the comparability of results for studies including both men and women. METHODS: A literature search mainly using MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases was undertaken to identify original articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2022. Studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis in men were included. The Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases and the International Osteoporosis Foundation osteoporosis-specific guideline was used to assess the quality of design, conduct, and reporting of included studies. RESULTS: Of 2973 articles identified, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, classified into economic evaluations of active drugs (n = 8) or nutritional supplements (n = 4), intervention thresholds (n = 5), screening strategies (n = 6), and post-fracture care programs (n = 2). Most studies were conducted in European countries (n = 15), followed by North America (n = 9). Bisphosphonates (namely alendronate) and nutritional supplements were shown to be generally cost effective compared with no treatment in men over 60 years of age with osteoporosis or prior fractures. Two other studies suggested that denosumab was cost effective in men aged 75 years and older with osteoporosis compared with bisphosphates and teriparatide. Intervention thresholds at which bisphosphonates were found to be cost effective varied among studies with a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that ranged from 8.9 to 34.2% for different age categories. A few studies suggested cost effectiveness of screening strategies and post-fracture care programs in men. Similar findings regarding the cost effectiveness of drugs and intervention thresholds in women and men were captured, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men. The quality of the studies included had an average score of 18.8 out of 25 (range 13-23.5). Hip fracture incidence and mortality risk were mainly derived from studies in men, while fracture cost, treatment efficacy, and disutility were commonly derived from studies in women or studies combining both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-osteoporosis drugs and nutritional supplements are generally cost effective in men with osteoporosis. Screening strategies and post-fracture care programs also showed economic benefits for men. Cost-effectiveness and intervention thresholds were generally similar in studies conducted in both men and women, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men.

Cost Effectiveness of Denosumab for Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures Among Postmenopausal Women in China: An Individual-Level Simulation Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of denosumab versus alendronate for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures among post-menopausal women in China. METHODS: A validated individual-level simulation model of osteoporotic fractures in the Chinese setting was adapted. Allowing both treatment discontinuation and waning effects, the analysis aimed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of denosumab compared to alendronate by simulating a cohort of previously fractured individuals over the residual lifetime from the healthcare system perspective. Hip, vertebral, and wrist/humeral fractures were tracked along with the associated medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Age-related health state utility values, health state utility values of fractures, costs, fracture incidence, and mortality risks for Chinese were used whenever available. Comparative effectiveness data were obtained from a published network meta-analysis. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the base case, denosumab was dominated by alendronate with incremental costs of CN¥2743 (US$425) and incremental health outcomes of - 0.20 quality-adjusted life-years at its current price in mainland China. It remained dominated in all one-way sensitivity analysis robustness checks. However, denosumab was cost effective if both drugs did not carry any waning effects. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, denosumab remained dominated in all replications. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab is not cost effective for preventing secondary fractures among overall postmenopausal women in China. It is advisable to identify alternative denosumab regimens for high-risk subgroups among previously fractured postmenopausal women.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of five drugs for treating postmenopausal women in the United States with osteoporosis and a very high fracture risk.

PURPOSE: Five strategies were recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) guidelines for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) patients with a very high fracture risk. We aimed to assess their cost-effectiveness in the United States (US). METHODS: A microsimulation Markov model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of five treatment strategies, including zoledronate, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab in PMO patients with a recent fracture from the healthcare perspective of the US. The data used in the model were obtained from published studies or online resources. Base-case analysis, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted for 65-, 70-, 75-, and 80-year-old patients. RESULTS: In base case, at 65 years, zoledronate was the cheapest strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, which represent incremental costs per QALY gained) of denosumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab against zoledronate were $13,020/QALY (quality-adjusted years), $477,331 /QALY, $176,287/QALY, and $98,953/QALY, respectively. Under a willing-to-pay (WTP, which means the highest price a consumer will pay for one unit of a good of service) threshold of $150,000/QALY, denosumab and romosozumab were cost-effective against zoledronate. The PSA results showed that denosumab was the most cost-effective option with WTP thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY. The results were similar in other age groups. The DSA results indicated that the most common parameters that have important influence on the outcome were drug persistence, incidence of adverse events, the efficacy of drugs on hip fractures and the cost of the drug. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among PMO patients with a very high fracture risk in the US, zoledronate is the cheapest strategy and denosumab is the most cost-effective choice among these five strategies.

Romosozumabe para mulheres com osteoporose na pós menopausa, a partir de 70 anos, que apresentam risco muito alto de fratura por fragilidade e que falharam (apresentaram duas ou mais fraturas) com o padrão de tratamento medicamentoso / Romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, aged 70 years and older, who are at very high risk of a fragility fracture and who have failed (have had two or more fractures) with their standard of care

INTRODUÇÃO: A osteoporose é uma doença caracterizada pela baixa massa óssea acompanhada de deterioração da arquitetura óssea, o que aumenta o risco de fratura. Segundo a Organização Mundial de Saúde, a osteoporose é definida como DMO ≤ -2,5 desvios padrão abaixo do pico de massa óssea encontrada no adulto jovem. É uma doença geralmente é silenciosa até a ocorrência de fratura, que caracteriza seu principal desfecho clínico. O tratamento envolve abordagem não farmacológica e farmacológica. Na última modalidade, os Protocolos Clínicos e Diretrizes Terapêuticas (PCDT) da Osteoporose do Ministério da Saúde (2014) recomendam em primeira linha a utilização de bisfosfonatos (alendronato, risedronato ou pamidronato) e, em segunda linha, raloxifeno, calcitonina ou estrógenos conjugados. Contudo, o PCDT não apresenta informações sobre o tratamento subsequente em caso de falha, de modo que o paciente não teria opção terapêutica em terceira linha, justificando-se, assim, a avaliação do romosozumabe para esta população. PERGUNTA DE P

Definition and management of very high fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a position statement from the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (ABRASSO).

Several drugs are available for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Over the last decades, most patients requiring pharmacological intervention were offered antiresorptive drugs as first-line therapy, while anabolic agents were considered a last resource for those with therapeutic failure. However, recent randomized trials in patients with severe osteoporosis have shown that anabolic agents reduce fractures to a greater extent than antiresorptive medications. Additionally, evidence indicates that increases in bone mineral density (BMD) are maximized when patients are treated with anabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive therapy. This evidence is key, considering that greater increases in BMD during osteoporosis treatment are associated with a more pronounced reduction in fracture risk. Thus, international guidelines have recently proposed an individualized approach to osteoporosis treatment based on fracture risk stratification, in which the stratification risk has been refined to include a category of patients at very high risk of fracture who should be managed with anabolic agents as first-line therapy. In this document, the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism propose the definition of very high risk of osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women, for whom anabolic agents should be considered as first-line therapy. This document also reviews the factors associated with increased fracture risk, trials comparing anabolic versus antiresorptive agents, efficacy of anabolic agents in patients who are treatment naïve versus those previously treated with antiresorptive agents, and safety of anabolic agents.

Cost-effectiveness of Denosumab for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in Malaysia.

From the perspective of Malaysian health care providers, denosumab was cost-effective in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, with an optimal outcome starting at age 60 years. Our results provide important insights into the value for money of anti-osteoporotic agents that can serve as a reference for other countries with comparable epidemiological data. INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of denosumab with alendronate and no treatment in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis among the Malaysian population. METHODS: A well-validated Markov model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab in a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic women between 50 and 80 years old who had no history of fractures. A 10-year time horizon from the perspective of Malaysian health care providers was used in this analysis. The model parameters, including transition probabilities and costs, were based on Malaysian sources. Treatment efficacy data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. The study outcomes were presented as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of the results. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at MYR 21,438 (USD 5175) per QALY. RESULTS: Denosumab was found to be a cost-effective option for postmenopausal osteoporotic women aged 60 and older. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab versus alendronate ranged from MYR 16,955 (USD 4093) per QALY at age 60 to MYR 4380 (USD 1057) per QALY at age 80. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab improved monotonically with increasing age. Denosumab was 72.8-92.7% likely to be cost-effective at the cost-effectiveness threshold. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were robust across all parameter variations, with the annual cost of denosumab being the most sensitive. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the Malaysian health care provider, denosumab appears to be a cost-effective treatment choice for postmenopausal osteoporotic women over 60 years of age.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Teriparatide/Zoledronic Acid Compared With Zoledronic Acid Monotherapy for Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women in China.

Objective: We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid relative to zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. Methods: A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was updated to examine the cost-effectiveness of daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years (sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid), compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid vs. zoledronic acid monotherapy was $173,223/QALY at age 65 years, which was much higher than the pre-determined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $ 31,512/QALY, and the results were similar at other ages. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the two most impactful parameters were the cost of teriparatide and the residual effects of the medications included in this study. Sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid became cost-effective at age 80 with the cost of teriparatide reduced by 50%. Without the residual effect, the ICER increased to $257,982/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses shown that the probabilities of zoledronic acid monotherapy being cost-effective were 100% at a WTP of $31,512/QALY. Conclusions: Among Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid was not cost-effective unless the cost of teriparatide was reduced by 50% only for the participants over 80 years.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab for osteoporosis: a systematic review.

This paper systematically reviewed and assessed all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis. Denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: There are many pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for osteoporosis. However, the corresponding reviews are outdated or incomplete and need to be updated and refined. This article aims to systematically review and evaluate all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies of denosumab for osteoporosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed utilizing PubMed, EMBASE(Ovid), Proquest(EconLit), Chongqing VIP, WanFang Database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify full-text articles published before September 2021. The quality of full-text articles was evaluated by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards(CHEERS) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases International Osteoporosis Foundation guideline(ESCEO-IOF). RESULTS: In total, 21 full-text articles were eligible for inclusion. Denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporosis was not dominant compared to zoledronate and teriparatide. However, denosumab was dominant compared with strontium ranelate, raloxifene, and ibandronate in patients over 65 years. The probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective or dominant were more than 85% compared with no treatment and risedronate in patients aged over 70 years. Compared to alendronate, the highest rate of denosumab dominance occurred in patients aged 65 to 75 years, at about 65%. Most of the articles had higher CHEERS scores than ESCEO-IOF scores (converted into percentages). CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis was influenced by multiple factors. Generally, denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the transparency, generalization, and quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis.

Fracture rates and economic outcomes in patients with osteoporosis prescribed risedronate gastro-resistant versus other oral bisphosphonates: a claims data analysis.

Patients with osteoporosis prescribed risedronate gastro-resistant had a lower incidence of fractures versus those prescribed other oral bisphosphonates. Administration of risedronate gastric-resistant does not require fasting, and this more convenient dosing administration may explain its improved efficacy. PURPOSE: Up to half of patients do not follow complex dosing instructions of immediate-release bisphosphonates used for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures, which can result in suboptimal effectiveness. Risedronate gastro-resistant (GR) offers a more convenient dosing option by eliminating the need for fasting. This study compares fracture rates and outcomes between osteoporosis women treated with risedronate GR (GR cohort) versus other oral bisphosphonates (other cohort). METHODS: Claims from women with osteoporosis in the USA were analyzed. Patients were classified into the two cohorts based on the first oral bisphosphonate observed (index date) and matched 1:1 based on patient characteristics. Patients were observed for ≥ 2 years following the index date. Fracture rates, health care resource utilization and costs, and treatment persistence were compared. RESULTS: In total, 2,726 patients were selected in each cohort (median age: 60.0 years). The incidence of fractures was lower in the GR versus the other cohort for any fracture sites (incidence rate ratio, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.70-0.97) and spine fractures (0.71, 0.54-0.95), although the respective rate of medication discontinuation at 2 years was 80.5% and 74.4%. Time to first fracture was delayed for the GR cohort, reaching statistical significance after 36 months. The GR cohort incurred fewer hospitalizations (incidence rate per 1,000 patient-years: GR = 106.74; other = 124.20, p < 0.05) translating into lower hospitalization costs per patient per year (GR = $3,611; other = $4,603, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients prescribed risedronate GR versus other bisphosphonates had a lower incidence of fractures, which may be explained by the fact that the GR formulation is absorbed even when taken with food.

Cost-effectiveness of 3 versus 6 years of zoledronic acid treatment before bisphosphonate holiday for women with osteoporosis.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of recurrent periods of 3 versus 6 years of zoledronic acid treatment prior to 3-year bisphosphonate holidays for US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and femoral neck BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5. We found that cycles of 3 years of treatment followed by holidays is likely to be the more cost-effective option. INTRODUCTION: We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cycles of 3 years versus 6 years of zoledronic acid treatment prior to 3-year bisphosphonate holidays for US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: We developed an individual-level state-transition microsimulation cost-effectiveness model to compare treatment strategies over the lifetime of recurrent periods of 3 years of zoledronic acid followed by 3-year holidays (zoledronic acid 3/3), recurrent periods of 6 years of zoledronic acid followed by 3-year holidays (zoledronic acid 6/3), and no zoledronic acid treatment for women with osteoporosis and femoral neck BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5. RESULTS: Base-case analysis and all key parameter sensitivity analysis findings for every treatment initiation age evaluated (50, 60, 70, and 80) revealed that zoledronic acid 3/3 was consistently the most cost-effective strategy, assuming a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In general, the zoledronic acid 3/3 and 6/3 strategies were relatively close in effectiveness (QALYs) over the lifetime; however, lifetime direct health care costs were on average approximately $2000 lower for the 3/3 strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results revealed that the zoledronic acid 3/3 strategy was favored in greater than 70% of the iterations for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY for all treatment initiation ages evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: After 3 years of zoledronic acid treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and femoral neck BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5, taking 3-year holidays before restarting another treatment cycle is likely to be more cost-effective over the lifetime than cycles of 6 years of treatment prior to 3-year holidays.

Heavy clinical and economic burden of osteoporotic fracture among elderly female Medicare beneficiaries.

We comprehensively described elderly Medicare women with an outpatient visit in 2011 and fracture within 2 years before. These women were at very high risk for subsequent fracture and high healthcare utilization and cost, especially those with vertebral or multiple fractures. However, rates of fracture prevention treatments were low. INTRODUCTION: Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis are stratified to high and very-high fracture risk categories, and this categorization drives algorithms for osteoporosis management in osteoporosis treatment guidelines. This study comprehensively describes a very-high-risk cohort. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Medicare 20% database; elderly women with an outpatient visit in 2011 and fracture within 2 years before the visit were included. Outcomes included fracture risk, all-cause and fracture-related healthcare resource utilization and cost, and osteoporosis medication use in the 5 years after the visit. RESULTS: Overall, 43,193 patients were included. The 5-year probability was 0.36 for major fracture and 0.11 and 0.17 for hip fracture and vertebral fracture, respectively, much higher than the guidelines' 10-year probability thresholds for very-high-risk (0.3 for major fracture, 0.045 for hip fracture). Rates of hospitalizations, emergency department visits or observation stays, and skilled nursing facility stays in year 1 were 53.7, 57.0, and 18.8 per 100 patient-years, respectively, decreasing slightly in subsequent years. Mean healthcare cost was $23,700 in year 1, decreasing to $18,500 in year 5. About 29.1% of patients received osteoporosis medications in year 1, decreasing to 16.9% by year 5. Rates for all outcomes, especially fractures, were much higher among vertebral and multiple fracture cohorts. CONCLUSION: Elderly women with a fracture within last 2 years were at very-high-risk for subsequent fracture and high healthcare utilization and cost, especially those with vertebral or multiple fractures. However, rates of fracture prevention treatments were low. More effort is needed to identify and treat patients at very-high-risk for fracture.

Which injected antiosteoporotic medication is worth paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four injected antiosteoporotic medications including teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the four drugs above in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history of hip, vertebral, or wrist at various ages (65, 70, 75, and 80) of therapy initiation from the health care payer perspective. RESULTS: Denosumab was dominant (ie, lower costs and greater quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) compared with other strategies at all ages studied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of zoledronate or ibandronate versus no treatment were $4,482.88/ QALYs or $11,378/QALYs, respectively, at age 65 years, and the results at other ages were similar. In contrast, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of teriparatide strategy compared with no treatment exceeded the pre-determined threshold of a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY regardless of the adoption of the patient assistance program at all ages studied, and a threshold analysis showed that teriparatide without patient assistance program became cost-effective when the annual drug cost is decreased to $1,644.87 (current cost: $8,764.65). The cost-effectiveness decision did not change in most of the one-way sensitivity analyses. A scenario analysis considering no offset effect of denosumab showed that zoledronate had the potential to become the optimal option relative to denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective compared with other strategies were 100% at a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Among postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China, denosumab therapy is cost-effective at all ages examined from the health care payer perspective, compared with teriparatide, zoledronate, or ibandronate. This study will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in China.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan.

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of continued denosumab treatment, compared with discontinuation of denosumab after one dose, for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan, using real-world fracture reduction effectiveness and cost data. Outcomes indicate that continued denosumab treatment produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD $16,743 per QALY. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continued denosumab use versus discontinuation after one dose, for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan, using real-world fracture reduction effectiveness and cost data. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was used to evaluate the lifetime costs and QALYs associated with continued denosumab treatment versus discontinuation of treatment after one dose. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of Taiwan's healthcare system and used a discount rate of 3% per annum. The patient population consisted of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis with a mean age of 77 years who initiated denosumab treatment. Fracture reduction effectiveness data, baseline fracture rates, mortality data, and costs of fracture were informed by Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. RESULTS: Model outcomes showed that continued treatment with denosumab produced an expected gain of 0.042 QALYs and an incremental cost of USD $704, compared with discontinuation of denosumab after one dose. This corresponds to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD $16,743 per QALY gained. Probabilistic and scenario analysis showed that results are stable to variations in model assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, at a cost per QALY threshold equivalent to gross domestic product per capita in 2020 in Taiwan (USD $30,038), continued treatment with denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis is cost-effective compared with treatment discontinuation.