The cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis medications for preventing periprosthetic fractures following femoral neck fracture indicated hip arthroplasty: a break-even analysis.

Osteoporosis treatment following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Our study evaluated the economic viability of treatment in patients following arthroplasty and demonstrates that treatment with oral bisphosphonates can be cost-effective in preventing PPF. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis treatment following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Although cost-effective in reducing the rate of secondary fragility fracture, the economic viability of osteoporosis treatment in preventing PPF has not been evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use a break-even analysis to determine whether and which current osteoporosis medications are cost-effective in preventing PPF following arthroplasty for FNFs. METHODS: Three-year average cost of osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonates, estrogen hormonal therapy, intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, and abaloparatide), costs of PPF care, and PPF rates in patients who underwent hip arthroplasty for FNFs without osteoporosis treatment were used to perform a break-even analysis. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) related to osteoporosis treatment and sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention and break-even PPF rates. RESULTS: Oral bisphosphonate therapy following arthroplasty for hip fractures would be economically justified if it prevents one out of 56 PPFs (ARR, 1.8%). Given the current cost and incidence of PPF, overall treatment can only be economically viable for PPF prophylaxis if the 3-year costs of these agents are less than $1500. CONCLUSION: The utilization of lower cost osteoporosis medications such as oral bisphosphonates and estrogen hormonal therapy as PPF prophylaxis in this patient population would be economically viable if they reduce the PPF rate by 1.8% and 1.5%, respectively. For IV bisphosphonates and newer agents to be economically viable as PPF prophylaxis in the USA, their costs need to be significantly reduced.

Patterns of care and economic consequences of using bone-targeted agents for castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients with bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events in Switzerland - the SAKK 95/16 prostate study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines state that bone-targeted agents such as denosumab or zoledronic acid at doses used for bone metastasis are not indicated for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) with bone metastases. Whereas denosumab has never been studied in this patient population, zoledronic acid has been shown to be ineffective in decreasing the risk for skeletal-related events. This study estimates the prevalence and economic consequences of real-world use of bone-targeted agents for mCSPC patients in Switzerland. METHODS: To estimate the frequency of bone-targeted agent administration and skeletal-related events, data from a non-interventional, cross-sectional survey involving oncologists across Switzerland (SAKK 95/16) was combined with data from the Swiss National Institute for Cancer Epidemiology and Registration (NICER). Economic parameters were calculated from the perspective of the healthcare system over the median time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression for the extrapolated patient group, using data from NICER. The cost calculation covered costs for bone-targeted agents, their administration and skeletal-related events. The time to PSA progression (33.2 months), as well as the probability and cost of skeletal-related events were derived from the literature. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 86 physicians treating 417 patients, of whom 106 (25.4%) had prostate cancer, with 36 (34.0%) of these mCSPC. The majority of mCSPC patients (52.8%, n = 19) received bone-targeted agents monthly. Denosumab was the treatment of choice in 84.2% of patients (n = 16). Extrapolation using data from NICER indicated that 568 mCSPC patients may be treated with bone-targeted agents at doses used for bone metastasis  every year in Switzerland, leading to estimated total costs of more than CHF 8.3 million over 33.2 months. Because of its more frequent prescription and higher price, it appears that almost 93% of the total costs can be attributed to denosumab. For both denosumab and zoledronic acid, the most expensive components were the cost of administration and the drug cost, making up more than 90% of the total costs, with the rest being costs of skeletal-related events. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the administration of bone-targeted agents in doses used for bone-metastatic diseases to prevent skeletal-related events is frequent in the setting of mCSPC and results in significant costs for the healthcare system.

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.

Impact of the implementation of a Fracture Liaison Service on pharmaceutical expenses for osteoporosis compared to an area without an FLS.

INTRODUCTION: Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) model for secondary prevention of fractures has demonstrated its cost-effectiveness using decision models. We analyze the impact of a FLS on pharmaceutical expenditures for osteoporosis (OP) in real-world circumstances. METHODS: Expenditures on OP medications from January 2011 to January 2017 were compiled. Pharmaceutical expenditures in the southern area of Gran Canaria were used as a control group to measure the impact of implementing an FLS in the northern area. We estimated generalized least squares regressions with interrupted time-series analysis where two interventions were considered: March 2012 (implementation of the FLS) and March 2016 (incorporation of nursing staff for inpatients with hip fracture). RESULTS: The northern area incurred greater expenditures for group I and II drugs. The difference in bisphosphonates expenditures between areas varied from 10.5% higher in the northern area pre-FLS to 11.2% post-FLS and 18.3% since March 2016. However, interrupted time series models do not find a significant impact of implementation of FLS on the pharmaceutical expenditures for either drug group. CONCLUSION: The implantation of an FLS did not lead to an increase in pharmaceutical expenditures for OP over the 5-year period compared to the standard care provided for secondary fracture preventions.

Prophylactic Fixation Can Be Cost-effective in Preventing a Contralateral Bisphosphonate-associated Femur Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of fractures associated with osteoporosis but increase the risk of atypical subtrochanteric femur fractures. After unilateral atypical femur fracture, there is risk of contralateral fracture, but the indications for prophylactic fixation are controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study is to use Markov modeling to determine whether contralateral prophylactic femur fracture fixation is cost-effective after a bisphosphonate-associated atypical femur fracture and, if so, what patient-related factors may influence that determination. METHODS: Markov modeling was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of contralateral prophylactic fixation after an initial atypical femur fracture. Simulated patients aged 60 to 90 years were included and separated into standard and high fracture risk cohorts. Patients with standard fracture risk were defined as those presenting with one atypical femur fracture but without symptoms or findings in the contralateral femur, whereas patients with high fracture risk were typified as those with more than one risk factor, including Asian ethnicity, prodromal pain, femoral geometry changes, or radiographic findings in the contralateral femur. Outcome probabilities and utilities were derived from studies matching to patient characteristics, and fragility fracture literature was used when atypical femur fracture data were not available. Associated costs were largely derived from Medicare 2015 reimbursement rates. Sensitivity analysis was performed on all model parameters within defined ranges. RESULTS: Prophylactic fixation for a 70-year-old patient with standard risk for fracture costs USD 131,300/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for high-risk patients costs USD 22,400/QALY. Sensitivity analysis revealed that prophylaxis for high-risk patients is cost-effective at USD 100,000/QALY when the cost of prophylaxis was less than USD 29,400, the probability of prophylaxis complications was less than 21%, or if the patient was younger than 89 years old. The parameters to which the model was most sensitive were the cost of prophylaxis, patient age, and probability of prophylaxis-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic fixation of the contralateral side after unilateral atypical femur fracture is not cost-effective for standard-risk patients but is cost-effective among high-risk patients between 60 and 89 years of age with a high risk for an atypical femur fracture defined by patients with more than one risk factor such as Asian ethnicity, prodromal pain, varus proximal femur geometry, femoral bowing, or radiographic changes such as periosteal beaking and a transverse radiolucent line. However, our findings are based on several key assumptions for modeling such as the probability of fractures and complications, the costs associated for each health state, and the risks of surgical treatment. Future research should prospectively evaluate the degree of risk contributed by known radiographic and demographic parameters to guide management of the contralateral femur after a patient presents with an atypical femur fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analyses.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America.

OBJECTIVE: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives. METHODS: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters. LIMITATIONS: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. CONCLUSION: Denosumab's efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.

Cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates for prevention of fracture related to glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION: Glucocorticoid therapy is associated with an appreciable risk of bone loss leading to fractures that require expensive treatments. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates for prevention of hip fracture in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) in Malaysia. METHOD: Retrospective data were collected from GIOP patients referred to the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre. Fracture events and direct medical costs were compared between bisphosphonates and calcium/vitamin D combination. RESULTS: Fracture events were reported in 28 out of 93 included patients, with hip and vertebral fractures representing 42.9% and 35.7%, respectively. Overall, the use of bisphosphonates could not be considered cost-effective for treatment of all GIOP patients. The presence of certain fracture risk factors was able to modify the cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates was considered cost-effective if started in patients more than 60 years old. However, the use of bisphosphonates was not cost-effective in GIOP patients with secondary osteoporosis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of bisphosphonates in patients with risk factors of previous fracture or rheumatoid arthritis were Malaysian Ringgits (MYR) 108 603.40 and MYR 25 699.21, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fracture risk factors of age, previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis and secondary osteoporosis may modify the cost-effectiveness outcomes of bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates would be considered cost-effective in patients more than 60 years old as compared to calcium/vitamin D treatments. Further evaluation of the impact of fracture risk factors in larger populations would provide more precise information to better assist rational and economical use of anti-osteoporosis treatment in GIOP patients.

Efficacy and treatment costs of zoledronate versus pamidronate in paediatric osteoporosis.

Intravenous pamidronate has been used in the treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) in children for over 20 years. The more potent zoledronate is an attractive alternative as it is administered less frequently. This study compares the clinical efficacy of intravenous pamidronate (1.5 mg/kg/day over 2 days, every 3 months) versus zoledronate (0.05 mg/kg/dose every 6 months) in 40 children (20 per group) with mild to moderate OI and the treatment costs of the two drugs in a tertiary centre for children with osteoporosis. Lumbar spine bone mineral density and fracture rate did not differ between drug groups following 1 and 2 years of treatment, respectively. Total cost per treatment course per patient was £1157 for pamidronate and £498 for zoledronate. Therefore, zoledronate is a considerably cheaper alternative to pamidronate with comparable efficacy, resulting in substantial annual savings for healthcare providers and a more convenient option for patients due to fewer hospital visits.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Monthly Zoledronic Acid, Zoledronic Acid Every 3 Months, and Monthly Denosumab in Women With Breast Cancer and Skeletal Metastases: CALGB 70604 (Alliance).

Purpose Skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone metastasis cause considerable morbidity, decrements in quality of life, and costs to the health care system. The results of a recent large randomized trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [CALGB/Alliance 70604]) showed that zoledronic acid (ZA) every 3 months was noninferior to monthly ZA in reducing the risks of SREs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases. Methods Using a Markov model, costs per SRE avoided were calculated for the three treatments. Sensitivity analyses were performed where denosumab SRE probabilities were assumed to be 50%, 75%, and 90% lower than the ZA SRE probabilities. Quality-adjusted life-years were also calculated. The analysis was from the US payer perspective. Results The mean costs of the denosumab treatment strategy are nine-fold higher than generic ZA every 3 months. Quality-adjusted life-years were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA every 3 months because it was the least costly treatment. The sensitivity analyses showed that relative to ZA every 3 months, the incremental costs per mean SRE avoided for denosumab ranged from $162,918 to $347,655. Conclusion ZA every 3 months was more CE in reducing the risks of SRE than monthly denosumab. This analysis was one of the first to incorporate the costs of generic ZA and one of the first independent CE analyses not sponsored by either Novartis or Amgen, the makers of ZA and denosumab, respectively. ZA every 3 months is the more CE option and more reasonable alternative to monthly denosumab.

Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a literature-based algorithm for use in the public health care system.

Bisphosphonates are considered first-line agents in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis based on extensive experience of use, safety, and proven efficacy in reducing vertebral, non-vertebral and femur fractures. However, post-marketing reports based on the treatment of millions of patients/year over lengthy periods of time have revealed the occurrence of initially unexpected adverse effects, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture, leading to the restriction of treatment duration with bisphosphonates by global regulatory agencies. However, despite the association between these effects and bisphosphonates, this risk should be analyzed in the context of osteoporosis treatment, alongside the benefit of preventing osteoporotic fractures and their clinical consequences. Therefore, we consider it plausible to discuss the restriction to the use of bisphosphonates, possible indications for prolonged treatment and alternative therapies following the suspension of this drug class for patients with persistent high risk of fracture after initial treatment, especially considering the problems of public health funding in Brazil and the shortage of drugs provided by the government. Thus, to standardize the treatment of osteoporosis in the public health care system, we aim to develop a proposal for a scientifically-based pharmacological treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis, establishing criteria for indication and allowing the rational use of each pharmacological agent. We discuss the duration of the initial bisphosphonate treatment, the therapeutic options for refractory patients and potential indications of other classes of drugs as first-choice treatment in the sphere of public health, in which assessing risk and cost effectiveness is a priority.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal-related events in the Czech Republic.

AIMS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the subcutaneous RANKL inhibitor, denosumab, vs the intravenous bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and other solid tumors (OST) in the Czech Republic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the effects of denosumab and zoledronic acid on costs (including drug costs and administration, patient management, SREs, and adverse events), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from a national payer perspective. Different discount rates, time horizons, SRE rates, distributions, and nature (asymptomatic vs all SREs), and the inclusion of treatment discontinuation were considered in scenario analyses. The robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with fewer SREs, improved QALYs, and higher total costs over a lifetime. The incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab vs zoledronic acid was 382,673 CZK for prostate cancer, 408,450 CZK for breast cancer, and 608,133 CZK for OST. Incremental costs per SRE avoided for the same tumor type were 54,007 CZK, 51,765 CZK, and 94,426 CZK, respectively. In scenario analyses, the results remained similar to baseline, when different discount rates and time horizons were considered. At a non-official willingness-to-pay threshold of 1.2 million CZK, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective vs zoledronic acid were 0.64, 0.67, and 0.49 for prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The SRE rates used were obtained from clinical trials; studies suggest rates may be higher in clinical practice. Additional evidence on real-world SRE rates could further improve the accuracy of the modeling. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab provides a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST in the Czech Republic.

Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a literature-based algorithm for use in the public health care system / Tratamento da osteoporose pós-menopáusica: um algoritmo baseado na literatura para uso no sistema público de saúde

ABSTRACT Bisphosphonates are considered first-line agents in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis based on extensive experience of use, safety, and proven efficacy in reducing vertebral, non-vertebral and femur fractures. However, post-marketing reports based on the treatment of millions of patients/year over lengthy periods of time have revealed the occurrence of initially unexpected adverse effects, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture, leading to the restriction of treatment duration with bisphosphonates by global regulatory agencies. However, despite the association between these effects and bisphosphonates, this risk should be analyzed in the context of osteoporosis treatment, alongside the benefit of preventing osteoporotic fractures and their clinical consequences. Therefore, we consider it plausible to discuss the restriction to the use of bisphosphonates, possible indications for prolonged treatment and alternative therapies following the suspension of this drug class for patients with persistent high risk of fracture after initial treatment, especially considering the problems of public health funding in Brazil and the shortage of drugs provided by the government. Thus, to standardize the treatment of osteoporosis in the public health care system, we aim to develop a proposal for a scientifically-based pharmacological treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis, establishing criteria for indication and allowing the rational use of each pharmacological agent. We discuss the duration of the initial bisphosphonate treatment, the therapeutic options for refractory patients and potential indications of other classes of drugs as first-choice treatment in the sphere of public health, in which assessing risk and cost effectiveness is a priority.

RESUMO Com base na vasta experiência de uso, segurança e eficácia comprovada na redução de fraturas vertebrais, não vertebrais e femorais, os bisfosfonatos são considerados agentes de primeira linha no tratamento da osteoporose pós-menopáusica. No entanto, os relatos pós-venda baseados no tratamento de milhões de pacientes/ano durante períodos prolongados de tempo revelaram a ocorrência de efeitos adversos inicialmente inesperados, como osteonecrose da mandíbula e fratura atípica do fêmur. Isso levou as agências reguladoras globais a restringirem a duração do tratamento com bisfosfonatos. No entanto, apesar da associação entre esses efeitos e os bisfosfonatos, esse risco deve ser analisado no contexto do tratamento da osteoporose, paralelamente ao benefício na prevenção de fraturas osteoporóticas e suas consequências clínicas. Portanto, considera-se plausível discutir a restrição ao uso dos bisfosfonatos, possíveis indicações para o tratamento prolongado e terapias opcionais após a suspensão dessa classe de fármaco para pacientes com alto risco persistente de fratura após o tratamento inicial, especialmente se considerarmos os problemas financeiros de saúde pública no Brasil e a escassez de fármacos fornecidos pelo governo. Assim, para padronizar o tratamento da osteoporose no sistema público de saúde pretende-se desenvolver uma proposta de tratamento farmacológico cientificamente fundamentada para a osteoporose pós-menopáusica, estabelecer critérios de indicação e permitir o uso racional de cada agente farmacológico. Discutem-se a duração do tratamento inicial com bisfosfonatos, as opções terapêuticas para pacientes refratários e potenciais indicações de outras classes de medicamentos como tratamento de primeira linha na esfera da saúde pública, em que a avaliação do risco e custo-efetividade é uma prioridade.

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.

Economic evaluation of a population-based osteoporosis intervention for outpatients with non-traumatic non-hip fractures: the "Catch a Break" 1i [type C] FLS.

Fracture liaison services (FLS) are advocated to improve osteoporosis treatment after fragility fracture, but there are few economic analyses of different models. A population-based 1i [=type C] FLS for non-hip fractures was implemented and it costs $44 per patient and it was very cost-effective ($9200 per QALY gained). Small operational changes would convert it from cost-effective to cost-saving. INTRODUCTION: After fragility fracture, <20% of patients receive osteoporosis treatment. FLS are recommended to address this deficit but there are very few economic analyses of different FLS models. Therefore, we conducted an economic analysis of a 1i (=type C) FLS called "Catch a Break (CaB)." METHODS: CaB is a population-based FLS in Alberta, Canada, that case-finds older outpatients with non-traumatic upper extremity, spine, pelvis, or "other" non-hip fractures and provides telephonic outreach and printed educational materials to patients and their physicians. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using Markov decision-analytic models. Costs were expressed in 2014 Canadian dollars and effectiveness based on model simulations of recurrent fractures and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Perspective was healthcare payer; horizon was lifetime; and costs and benefits were discounted 3%. RESULTS: Over 1 year, CaB enrolled 7323 outpatients (mean age 67 years, 75% female, 69% upper extremity) at average cost of $44 per patient. Compared with usual care, CaB increased rates of bisphosphonate treatment by 4.3 to 17.5% (p < 0.001). Over their lifetime, for every 10,000 patients enrolled in CaB, 4 hip fractures (14 fractures total) would be avoided and 12 QALYs gained. Compared with usual care, incremental cost-effectiveness of CaB was estimated at $9200 per QALY. CaB was cost-effective in 85% of 10,000 probabilistic simulations. Sensitivity analyses showed if "other" fractures were excluded and intervention costs reduced 25% that CaB would become cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively inexpensive population-based 1i (=type C) FLS was implemented in Alberta and it was very cost-effective. If CaB excluded "other" fractures and decreased intervention costs by 25%, it would be cost-saving, as would any FLS that was more effective and less expensive.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of once-yearly injection of zoledronic acid for the treatment of osteoporosis in Japan.

Model-based economic evaluation was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid. Although zoledronic acid was dominated by alendronate, the incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was quite small in extent. Considering the advantage of once-yearly injection of zoledronic acid in persistence, zoledronic acid might be a cost-effective treatment option compared to once-weekly oral alendronate. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of once-yearly injection of zoledronic acid for the treatment of osteoporosis in Japan. METHODS: A patient-level state-transition model was developed to predict the outcome of patients with osteoporosis who have experienced a previous vertebral fracture. The efficacy of zoledronic acid was derived from a published network meta-analysis. Lifetime cost and QALYs were estimated for patients who had received zoledronic acid, alendronate, or basic treatment alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of zoledronic acid was estimated. RESULTS: For patients 70 years of age, zoledronic acid was dominated by alendronate with incremental QALY of -0.004 to -0.000 and incremental cost of 430 USD to 493 USD. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the relative risk of hip fracture and drug cost strongly affected the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid compared to alendronate. Scenario analysis considering treatment persistence showed that the ICER of zoledronic acid compared to alendronate was estimated to be 47,435 USD, 27,018 USD, and 10,749 USD per QALY gained for patients with a T-score of -2.0, -2.5, or -3.0, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although zoledronic acid is dominated by alendronate, the incremental QALY is quite small in extent. Considering the advantage of annual zoledronic acid treatment in compliance and persistence, zoledronic acid may be a cost-effective treatment option compared to alendronate.

Cost-effectiveness of combined oral bisphosphonate therapy and falls prevention exercise for fracture prevention in the USA.

We developed a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling US white women without prior major osteoporotic fractures over a lifetime horizon. At ages 75 and 80, adding 1 year of exercise to 5 years of oral bisphosphonate therapy is cost-effective at a conventionally accepted threshold compared with bisphosphonates alone. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of the combined strategy of oral bisphosphonate therapy for 5 years and falls prevention exercise for 1 year compared with either strategy in isolation. METHODS: We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] (2014 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling US white women with different starting ages (65, 70, 75, and 80) without prior history of hip, vertebral, or wrist fractures over a lifetime horizon from the societal perspective. RESULTS: At ages 65, 70, 75, and 80, the combined strategy had ICERs of $202,020, $118,460, $46,870, and $17,640 per QALY, respectively, compared with oral bisphosphonate therapy alone. The combined strategy provided better health at lower cost than falls prevention exercise alone at ages 70, 75, and 80. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were particularly sensitive to the change in the opportunity cost of participants' time spent exercising. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of the combined strategy being cost-effective compared with the next best alternative increased with age, ranging from 35 % at age 65 to 48 % at age 80 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Among community-dwelling US white women ages 75 and 80, adding 1 year of exercise to 5 years of oral bisphosphonate therapy is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, compared with oral bisphosphonate therapy only. This analysis will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about treatment options to reduce fracture risk.

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.

TRAPEZE: a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy with zoledronic acid, strontium-89, or both, in men with bony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer is associated with a poor prognosis and high morbidity. TRAPEZE was a two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial of zoledronic acid (ZA) and strontium-89 (Sr-89), each combined with docetaxel. All have palliative benefits, are used to control bone symptoms and are used with docetaxel to prolong survival. ZA, approved on the basis of reducing skeletal-related events (SREs), is commonly combined with docetaxel in practice, although evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness is lacking. Sr-89, approved for controlling metastatic pain and reducing need for subsequent bone treatments, is generally palliatively used in patients unfit for chemotherapy. Phase II analysis confirmed the safety and feasibility of combining these agents. TRAPEZE aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each agent. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive six cycles of docetaxel plus prednisolone: alone, with ZA, with a single Sr-89 dose after cycle 6, or with both. Primary outcomes were clinical progression-free survival (CPFS: time to pain progression, SRE or death) and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes were SRE-free interval (SREFI), total SREs, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). Log-rank test and Cox regression modelling were used to determine clinical effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the NHS perspective and expressed as cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An additional analysis was carried out for ZA to reflect the availability of generic ZA. PATIENTS: 757 randomised (median age 68.7 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale score 0, 40%; 1, 52%; 2, 8%; prior radiotherapy, 45%); median prostate-specific antigen 143.78 ng/ml (interquartile range 50.8-353.9 ng/ml). Stratified log-rank analysis of CPFS was statistically non-significant for either agent (Sr-89, p = 0.11; ZA, p = 0.45). Cox regression analysis adjusted for stratification variables showed CPFS benefit for Sr-89 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.845, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.99; p = 0.036] and confirmed no effect of ZA (p = 0.46). ZA showed a significant SREFI effect (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93; p = 0.008). Neither agent affected OS (Sr-89, p = 0.74; ZA, p = 0.91), but both increased total cost (vs. no ZA and no Sr-89, respectively); decreased post-trial therapies partly offset costs [net difference: Sr-89 £1341; proprietary ZA (Zometa(®), East Hanover, NJ, USA) £1319; generic ZA £251]. QoL was maintained in all trial arms; Sr-89 (0.08 additional QALYs) and ZA (0.03 additional QALYs) showed slight improvements. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for Sr-89 was £16,590, with £42,047 per QALY for Zometa and £8005 per QALY for generic ZA. CONCLUSION: Strontium-89 improved CPFS, but not OS. ZA did not improve CPFS or OS but significantly improved SREFI, mostly post progression, suggesting a role as post-chemotherapy maintenance therapy. QoL was well maintained in all treatment arms, with differing patterns of care resulting from the effects of Sr-89 on time to progression and ZA on SREFI and total SREs. The addition of Sr-89 resulted in additional cost and a small positive increase in QALYs, with an ICER below the £20,000 ceiling per QALY. The additional costs and small positive QALY changes in favour of ZA resulted in ICERs of £42,047 (Zometa) and £8005 for the generic alternative; thus, generic ZA represents a cost-effective option. Additional analyses on the basis of data from the Hospital Episode Statistics data set would allow corroborating the findings of this study. Further research into the use of ZA (and other bone-targeting therapies) with newer prostate cancer therapies would be desirable. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12808747. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

[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.