Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States.

Aims: Bone complications (also known as skeletal-related events [SREs]) pose significant health and financial burdens on patients with bone metastases. Denosumab demonstrated superiority over zoledronic acid in delaying the time to first SRE. This study examined the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid from both US payer and societal perspectives.Methods: This analysis used a lifetime Markov model and included patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other solid tumors and bone metastases. The societal perspective included direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs associated with denosumab and zoledronic acid; the payer perspective included direct medical costs only. Bone complication rates for each tumor type were estimated from three pivotal phase 3 studies and modified to reflect real-world incidence.Results: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab use resulted in an incremental cost of $9,043, an incremental benefit of 0.128 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), a lifetime cost per QALY of $70,730, and a net monetary benefit (NMB) of $10,135 in favor of denosumab. Direct drug costs for denosumab ($28,352) were higher than zoledronic acid/untreated ($578), but were offset by reduced costs associated with bone complications. From a payer perspective, denosumab use was associated with an incremental cost of $13,396, and an incremental benefit of 0.128 QALYs, for a cost of $104,778 per QALY and an NMB of $5,782 in favor of denosumab.Limitations: Some model inputs had limited information and, given that the results may be sensitive to changes in these inputs, our findings should be interpreted within the context of the data inputs and modeling assumptions used in the analysis.Conclusions: Denosumab is a cost-effective option to prevent bone complications in patients with solid tumors when considering both payer and broader societal perspectives.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in four European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy.

Aim: The approved indication for denosumab (120 mg) was expanded in 2018 to include skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for SRE prevention in patients with MM from the national healthcare system perspective in a representative sample of European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy. Methods: The XGEVA global economic model for patients with MM was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab vs ZA over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the denosumab vs ZA randomized, phase 3 study ("20090482") in patients newly-diagnosed with MM, and comprised real-world adjusted SRE rates, serious adverse event (SAE) rates, treatment duration, dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Economic inputs comprised country-specific denosumab and ZA acquisition and administration costs, SRE and SAE management costs, and discount rates. Health utility decrements associated with MM disease progression, SRE and SAE occurrence, and route of administration were included. Results: Estimated ICERs (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) for denosumab vs ZA in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy were €26,294, €17,737, €6,982, and €27,228, respectively. Using 1-3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY as willingness to pay thresholds, denosumab was 69-94%, 84-96%, 79-96%, and 50-92% likely to be cost-effective vs ZA, respectively. Limitations: Economic inputs were derived from various sources, and time to event inputs were extrapolated from 20090482 study data. Conclusions: Denosumab is cost-effective vs ZA for SRE prevention in patients with MM in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy, based on often-adopted World Health Organization thresholds. This conclusion is robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Cost-effectiveness estimates varied across the four countries, reflecting differences in healthcare costs and national economic evaluation guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness of standard utilization of zoledronic acid for bone metastases from advanced lung cancer in China.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of standard utilization of zoledronic acid (ZA) relative to real-world utilization of ZA for bone metastasis (BM) in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer. Materials & methods: A decision analytic model was constructed to simulate health benefits and medical costs associated with standard and real-world utilization of ZA for BM in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer. Results: Compared with real-world utilization of ZA, standard utilization of ZA reduced cumulative risk of skeletal-related events (45.7 vs 63.6%), increased quality-adjusted life years (0.673 vs 0.626 QALY) and saved cumulated medical costs (¥343,163 vs ¥376,943). Conclusion: Standard utilization of ZA dominated real-world utilization of ZA for BM in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer from cost-effectiveness perspective.

Denosumab versus bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are highly prevalent in breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers. Their symptoms negatively affect quality of life and functionality and optimal management can mitigate these problems. There are two different targeted agents to treat them: bisphosphonates (pamidronate and zoledronic acid) and the monoclonal antibody denosumab. Estimates of cost-effectiveness are still mixed. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of economic studies that compares these two options. METHOD: Literature search comprised eight databases and keywords for bone metastases, bisphosphonates, denosumab, and economic studies were used. Data were extracted regarding their methodologic characteristics and cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies were evaluated regarding to its methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 263 unique studies were retrieved and six met inclusion criteria. All studies were based on clinical trials and other existing literature data, and they had high methodological quality. Most found unfavorable cost-effectiveness for denosumab compared with zoledronic acid, with adjusted ICERS that ranged from $4638-87,354 per SRE avoided and from US$57,274-4.81 M. per QALY gained, which varied widely according to type of tumor, time horizon, among others. Results were sensitive to drug costs, time to first skeletal-related event (SRE), time horizon, and utility. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab had unfavorable cost-effectiveness compared with zoledronic acid in most of the included studies. New economic studies based on real-world data and longer time horizons comparing these therapeutic options are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of single-dose zoledronic acid for nursing home residents with osteoporosis in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine administration of single-dose zoledronic acid for nursing home residents with osteoporosis in the USA. DESIGN: Markov cohort simulation model based on published literature from a healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. SETTING: Nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of nursing home residents aged 85 years with osteoporosis. INTERVENTIONS: Two strategies were compared: (1) a single intravenous dose of zoledronic acid 5 mg and (2) usual care (supplementation of calcium and vitamin D only). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as measured by cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, zoledronic acid had an ICER of $207 400 per QALY gained and was not cost-effective at a conventional willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. The results were robust to a reasonable range of assumptions about incidence, mortality, quality-of-life effects and the cost of hip fracture and the cost of zoledronic acid. Zoledronic acid had a potential to become cost-effective if a fracture risk reduction with zoledronic acid was higher than 23% or if 6-month mortality in nursing home residents was lower than 16%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the zoledronic acid would be cost-effective in 14%, 27% and 44% of simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000, $100 000 or $200 000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine administration of single-dose zoledronic acid in nursing home residents with osteoporosis is not a cost-effective use of resources in the USA but could be justifiable in those with a favourable life expectancy.