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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

[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.

Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service.

Individuals who sustain fragility fractures are at high risk of refracture. However, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low for these patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the performance and cost-effectiveness of introducing a fracture liaison service (FLS) into a tertiary hospital. In "nonhospitalized" ambulatory patients who had sustained fragility fractures, we assessed baseline osteoporosis investigation and treatment rates, and subsequently, the impact of introducing an orthopedic osteoporosis policy and an FLS. Outcomes measured were uptake of osteoporosis intervention, patient satisfaction, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. QALYs were calculated over 5 years using predicted fracture risks without intervention and estimated fracture risk reduction with intervention. At baseline (n = 49), 2% of ambulatory patients who had sustained fragility fractures underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and 6% received osteoporosis-specific medication. After introduction of an osteoporosis policy (n = 58), 28% were investigated with DXA (p < 0.0001). However, treatment rates were unchanged. An FLS was introduced, reviewing 203 new patients over the inaugural 2 years (mean age [standard deviation], 67 (11) years; 77% female). All underwent DXA, and criteria for osteoporosis and osteopenia were identified in 44% and 40%, respectively. Osteoporosis medications were prescribed to 61% patients (risedronate: 22%, alendronate: 16%, strontium ranelate: 13%, zoledronic acid: 8%, other: 2%). Eighty-five of 90 questionnaire respondents were very satisfied or satisfied with the FLS. With the treatment prescribed over 5 years, we conservatively estimated that this FLS would reduce nonvertebral refractures from 59 to 50, improving QALYs by 0.054 and costing $1716 per patient (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $31749). This FLS model improves uptake of osteoporosis intervention guidelines, is popular among patients, and improves cost-effectiveness. Thus, it has the capacity to substantially improve health in a cost-effective way.

Actions following adverse drug events - how do these influence uptake and utilisation of newer and/or similar medications?

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, actions following some adverse drug events received major publicity. This study investigated changes in usage patterns of medications in Australia following two examples - rofecoxib market withdrawal (2004) and warnings about jaw necrosis following bisphosphonates (2007). METHODS: Dispensing data for COX-2 inhibitors (2000-2008) and anti-osteoporosis medications (2003-2012) were obtained from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme database. For bisphosphonates, data on Australian marketing expenditures were purchased from Cegedim(R). RESULTS: For COX-2 inhibitors, celecoxib dispensing halved after rofecoxib withdrawal, but meloxicam dispensing increased by 60 %. When lumiracoxib was introduced (2006) there was uptake of prescribing at a faster rate than meloxicam in 2002, its first year of use. For bisphosphonates, alendronate had highest use at the time of the warnings (8.3 DDD/1000/day), dropping to 4.9 DDD/1000/day by 2012. In contrast, risedronate use rose 2007-2012 from 4.1 to 4.9 DDD/1000/day. There was 49 % increase in reported annual expenditure on detailing for risedronate from 2007 to 2008 (to AUD$7.3 million) and only 29 % increase for alendronate (to AUD$3.1 million). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid uptake of prescribing of lumiracoxib and increased use of meloxicam flagged a concern, especially after rofecoxib withdrawal due to safety issues. Bisphosphonates are useful drugs, however the dramatic rise in expenditure on detailing, followed by a rise in utilisation of risedronate could suggest that adverse publicity triggered a marketing response. These examples highlight the importance of tracking utilisation of medication classes in real time, using different data as needed, to ensure that due caution is exercised (and quick intervention provided if needed) for medications in the same class.

Cost-minimization study comparing annual infusion of zoledronic acid or weekly oral alendronate in women with low bone mineral density.

Cost-minimization study to assess the annual direct costs of 2 antiresorptive strategies in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral densities (BMDs). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 70 mg of oral weekly alendronate or a 1-time 5mg of intravenous zoledronic acid. All medical and nonmedical direct costs were recorded for 1 yr. Student's t-test or the Chi-squared test was used. A total of 101 postmenopausal women were enrolled with a mean age of 58.3 ± 7.6 yr and a postmenopausal period of 13.5 ± 8.3 yr. A total of 50 patients completed 1 yr of alendronate and 51 patients received zoledronic acid. At baseline, no differences were seen between the 2 groups in anthropometric measures, comorbidities, and bone mineral density. The costs for medical attention for low bone mass were $81,532 (US Dollars) for the alendronate group and $69,251 for the zoledronic acid group; the cost per patient was $1631 in the alendronate group vs $1358 in the zoledronic acid group (p<0.0001). Therefore, zoledronic acid treatment provided an annual savings of 15% of the direct costs compared with oral alendronate treatment. Moreover, there was a significant increase in lumbar spine T-scores in the zoledronic acid group when compared with the alendronate group. Annual zoledronic acid infusion as an antiresorptive treatment in women with low BMD provides significant monetary savings when compared with weekly alendronate therapy for 1 yr. Zoledronic acid infusion is also linked to higher increase in BMD and compliance.

Comparing cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for the treatment of bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases from various cancers have been traditionally treated with bisphosphonates, such as zoledronic acid (ZA), to prevent future skeletal-related events (SREs). Denosumab (Dmab) has been shown to have more advantages in preventing SREs in clinical trials than ZA, but the cost to administer Dmab is significantly higher. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to investigate the methodologies used to compare the cost-effectiveness of Dmab and ZA. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched systematically for all cost-effectiveness analyses published between January week 1, 2006 to August week 1, 2012. Search strategies were designed to retrieve articles analyzing the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of Dmab compared to ZA in patients with bone metastases. From 12 references obtained in the initial database search, eight satisfied the predetermined criteria for full article review. Articles were analyzed for incremental costs per skeletal-related event avoided or incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. RESULTS: All the studies identified received funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals (the manufacturer of ZA) or Amgen Incorporated (the manufacturer of Dmab). The studies looked at the economic analysis using different associated costs and over various time periods, ranging from a 1-year to a lifetime time horizon. CONCLUSION: It is not clear whether the methods used across studies are consistent, which may account for the differences between estimated costs and effects. Future research is suggested to explore the cost-effectiveness between Dmab and ZA using a standardize time frame and endpoint.

A reappraisal of generic bisphosphonates in osteoporosis.

UNLABELLED: The competitive price of generic bisphosphonates has had a marked effect on practice guidelines, but an increasing body of evidence suggests that they have more limited effectiveness than generally assumed. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to review the impact of generic bisphosphonates on effectiveness in the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: This study is a literature review. RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence indicates that many generic formulations of alendronate are more poorly tolerated than the proprietary preparations which results in significantly poorer adherence and thus effectiveness. Poorer effectiveness may result from faster disintegration times of many generics that increase the likelihood of adherence of particulate matter to the oesophageal mucosa. Unfortunately, market authorisation, based on the bioequivalence of generics with a proprietary formulation, does not take into account the potential concerns about safety. The poor adherence of many generic products has implications for guideline development, cost-effectiveness and impact of treatment on the burden of disease. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of generic bisphosphonates requires formal testing to re-evaluate their role in the management of osteoporosis.

Evaluation and comparison of safety, convenience and cost of administering intravenous pamidronate infusions to children in the home and ambulatory care settings.

The use of bisphosphonates in children to treat low bone mineral density has increased. Safety and efficacy of pamidronate has been previously demonstrated. However, little research has been done on pamidronate infusion in the home health setting for patients with metabolic bone disease. Data were collected via a survey to assess satisfaction and convenience of infusions. Adverse events were measured by collecting calcium levels before and after infusions. Infusion costs were estimated from the standard orders from one home health agency and our infusion center. We found no difference in the rates of hypocalcemia between the two groups. The survey results showed high satisfaction for both groups, with higher scores in the home health group for convenience and stress. Home health infusions showed lower cost and less absenteeism from school and work. Home health-based pamidronate infusion appears to be safe, less expensive, and is associated with high patient satisfaction.

The cost effectiveness of teriparatide as a first-line treatment for glucocorticoid-induced and postmenopausal osteoporosis patients in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents the model and results to evaluate the use of teriparatide as a first-line treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). The study's objective was to determine if teriparatide is cost effective against oral bisphosphonates for two large and high risk cohorts. METHODS: A computer simulation model was created to model treatment, osteoporosis related fractures, and the remaining life of PMO and GIOP patients. Natural mortality and additional mortality from osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Costs for treatment with both teriparatide and oral bisphosphonates were included. Drug efficacy was modeled as a reduction to the relative fracture risk for subsequent osteoporosis related fractures. Patient health utilities associated with age, gender, and osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Patient costs and utilities were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates and teriparatide versus no treatment were estimated.For each of the PMO and GIOP populations, two cohorts differentiated by fracture history were simulated. The first contained patients with both a historical vertebral fracture and an incident vertebral fracture. The second contained patients with only an incident vertebral fracture. The PMO cohorts simulated had an initial Bone Mineral Density (BMD) T-Score of -3.0. The GIOP cohorts simulated had an initial BMD T-Score of -2.5. RESULTS: The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture PMO cohorts were €36,995 per QALY and €19,371 per QALY. The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture GIOP cohorts were €20,826 per QALY and €15,155 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates as a first-line treatment for the high risk PMO and GIOP cohorts evaluated is justified at a cost per QALY threshold of €50,000.

How rebates, copayments, and administration costs affect the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis therapies.

PURPOSE: Because of rising drug expenditures, cost considerations have become essential, necessitating the requirement for cost-effectiveness analyses for managed care organizations (MCOs). The study objective is to examine the impact of various drug-cost components, in addition to wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis therapies. DESIGN: A Markov model of osteoporosis was used to exemplify different drug cost scenarios. METHODOLOGY: We examined the effect of varying rebates for oral bisphosphonates--risedronate and ibandronate--as well as considering the impact of varying copayments and administration costs for intravenous zoledronate. The population modeled was 1,000 American women, > or = 50 years with osteoporosis. Patients were followed for 1 year to reflect an annual budget review of formularies by MCOs. The cost of therapy was based on an adjusted WAC, and is referred to as net drug cost. The total annual cost incurred by an MCO for each drug regimen was calculated using the net drug cost and fracture cost. We estimated cost on a quality adjusted life year (QALY) basis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: When considering different rebates, results for risedronate versus ibandronate vary from cost-savings (i.e., costs less and more effective) to approximately $70,000 per QALY. With no risedronate rebate, an ibandronate rebate of approximately 65% is required before cost per QALY surpasses $50,000. With rebates greater than 25% for risedronate, irrespective of ibandronate rebates, results become cost-saving. Results also showed the magnitude of cost savings to the MCO varied by as much as 65% when considering no administration cost and the highest coinsurance rate for zoledronate. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that cost-effectiveness varies considerably when factors in addition to the WAC are considered. This paper provides recommendations for pharmaceutical manufacturers and MCOs when developing and interpreting such analyses.

Fracture liaison services for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture: a cost-effectiveness evaluation based on data collected over 8 years of service provision.

SUMMARY: The cost-effectiveness of Fracture Liaison Services (FLSs) for prevention of secondary fracture in osteoporosis patients in the United Kingdom (UK), and the cost associated with their widespread adoption, were evaluated. An estimated 18 fractures were prevented and £21,000 saved per 1,000 patients. Setup across the UK would cost an estimated £9.7 million. INTRODUCTION: Only 11% to 28% of patients with a fragility fracture receive osteoporosis treatment in the UK. FLSs provide an efficient means to identify patients and are endorsed by the Department of Health but have not been widely adopted. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FLSs in the UK and the cost associated with their widespread adoption. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness and budget-impact model was developed, utilising detailed audit data collected by the West Glasgow FLS. RESULTS: For a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 fragility-fracture patients (740 requiring treatment), 686 received treatment in the FLS compared with 193 in usual care. Assessments and osteoporosis treatments cost an additional £83,598 and £206,544, respectively, in the FLS; 18 fractures (including 11 hip fractures) were prevented, giving an overall saving of £21,000. Setup costs for widespread adoption of FLSs across the UK were estimated at £9.7 million. CONCLUSIONS: FLSs are cost-effective for the prevention of further fractures in fragility-fracture patients. The cost of widespread adoption of FLS across the UK is small in comparison with other service provision and would be expected to result in important benefits in fractures avoided and reduced hospital bed occupancy.

Cost of non-persistence with oral bisphosphonates in post-menopausal osteoporosis treatment in France.

BACKGROUND: During the last decade, oral bisphosphonates (BP) became the most widely prescribed pharmacologic class for post-menopausal osteoporosis. However, many surveys revealed the important issue of poor persistence with those drugs resulting in a failure of treatment to reduce fracture risk sufficiently. Using a published Markov model, this study analyses the economic impact of non-persistence with bisphosphonates in the context of the introduction of generics in France. METHODS: Direct costs of vertebral, hip and wrist fracture were assessed and included in an existing 10-year Markov model developed to analyse consequences of non-persistence. Three alternatives of comparison were set: no treatment, real-world persistence, and ideal persistence. Simulated patients' characteristics matched those from a French observational study and the real-world adherence alternative employed persistence data from published database analysis. The risk of fracture of menopausal women and the risk reduction associated with the drugs were based on results reported in clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated first between real-world adherence and no treatment alternatives, and second between ideal and real-world persistence alternatives. The cost of non-persistence was defined as the difference between total cost of ideal and real-world persistence alternatives. RESULTS: Within fractured women population, mean costs of 10-year management of fracture were significantly different between the three alternatives with €7,239 (± €4,783), €6,711 (± €4,410) and €6,134 (± €3,945) in the no-treatment, the real-world and ideal persistence alternatives, respectively (p < 0.0001). Cost-effectiveness ratio for real-world treatment persistence compared with no-treatment alternative was found dominant and as well, alternative of ideal persistence dominated the former. Each ten percentage point of persistence gain amounted to €58 per patient, and extrapolation resulted in a global annual cost of non-persistence of over €30 million to the French health care system, with a substantial transfer from hospital to pharmacy budgets. CONCLUSION: Within term, improving persistence with oral bisphosphonates should be economically dominant on levels currently known in real-world. Given this potential savings, ambitious adherence-enhancing interventions should be considered in osteoporotic patients.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of multifaceted evidence implementation programs for the prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

SUMMARY: Using a computer simulation model, we determined that an intervention aimed at improving the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is likely to be cost-effective to third-party health insurers only if it focuses on individuals with very high fracture risk and the proportion of prescriptions for generic bisphosphonates increases substantially. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to determine whether an evidence implementation program (intervention) focused on increasing appropriate management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) might be cost-effective compared with current practice (no intervention) from the perspective of a third-party health insurer. METHODS: We developed a Markov microsimulation model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. The hypothetical patient cohort was of current chronic glucocorticoid users 50-65 years old and 70% female. Model parameters were derived from published literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The intervention resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $298,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and $206,000 per hip fracture averted. If the cohort's baseline risk of fracture was increased by 50% (10-year cumulative incidence of hip fracture of 14%), the ICERs improved significantly: $105,000 per QALY and $137,000 per hip fracture averted. The ICERs improved significantly if the proportion of prescriptions for generic bisphosphonates was increased to 75%, with $113,000 per QALY and $77,900 per hip fracture averted. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence implementation programs for the management of GIOP are likely to be cost-effective to third-party health insurers only if they are targeted at individuals with a very high risk of fracture and the proportion of prescriptions for less expensive generic bisphosphonates increases substantially.