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.

Cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis in the US.

BACKGROUND: In the US, 26 % of women aged ≥65 years, and over 50 % of women aged ≥85 years are affected with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). Each year, the total direct health care costs are estimated to be $US12-18 billion. OBJECTIVE: The cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a US third-party payer perspective was evaluated. METHODS: A lifetime cohort Markov model was developed with seven health states: 'well', hip fracture, vertebral fracture, 'other' osteoporotic fracture, post-hip fracture, post-vertebral fracture, and dead. During each cycle, patients could have a fracture, remain healthy, remain in a post-fracture state or die. Relative fracture risk reductions, background fracture risks, mortality rates, treatment-specific persistence rate, utilities, and medical and drug costs were derived using published sources. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for generic alendronate, denosumab, branded risedronate, and branded ibandronate in the overall PMO population and high-risk subgroups: (a) ≥2 of the following risks: >70 years of age, bone mineral density (BMD) T score less than or equal to -3.0, and prevalent vertebral fracture; and (b) ≥75 years of age. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3 % annually, and all costs were inflated to 2012 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying parameters e.g., efficacies of interventions, costs, utilities, and the medication persistence ratio. RESULTS: In the overall PMO population, total lifetime costs for alendronate, denosumab, risedronate, and ibandronate were $US64,400, $US67,400, $US67,600 and $US69,200, respectively. Total QALYs were 8.2804, 8.3155, 8.2735 and 8.2691, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for denosumab versus generic alendronate was $US85,100/QALY. Risedronate and ibandronate were dominated by denosumab. In the high-risk subgroup (a), total costs for alendronate, denosumab, risedronate and ibandronate were $US70,400, $US70,800, $US74,000 and $US76,900, respectively. Total QALYs were 7.2006, 7.2497, 7.1969 and 7.1841, respectively. Denosumab had an ICER of $US7,900/QALY versus generic alendronate and dominated all other strategies. Denosumab dominated all strategies in women aged ≥75 years. Base-case results between denosumab and generic alendronate were most sensitive to the relative risk of hip fracture for both drugs and the cost of denosumab. CONCLUSION: In each PMO population examined, denosumab represented good value for money compared with branded bisphosphonates. Furthermore, denosumab was either cost effective or dominant compared with generic alendronate in the high-risk subgroups.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Denosumab is a novel biologic agent approved in Canada for treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis (PMO) in women at high risk for fracture or who have failed or are intolerant to other osteoporosis therapies. This study estimated cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs usual care from the perspective of the Ontario public payer. METHODS: A previously published PMO Markov cohort model was adapted for Canada to estimate cost-effectiveness of denosumab. The primary analysis included women with demographic characteristics similar to those from the pivotal phase III denosumab PMO trial (FREEDOM; age 72 years, femoral neck BMD T-score -2.16 SD, vertebral fracture prevalence 23.6%). Three additional scenario sub-groups were examined including women: (1) at high fracture risk, defined in FREEDOM as having at least two of three risk factors (age 70+; T-score ≤ -3.0 SD at lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck; prevalent vertebral fracture); (2) age 75+; and (3) intolerant or contraindicated to oral bisphosphonates (BPs). Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon comparing denosumab to usual care ('no therapy', alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene [sub-group 3 only]). The analysis considered treatment-specific persistence and post-discontinuation residual efficacy, as well as treatment-specific adverse events. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The multi-therapy comparisons resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab vs alendronate of $60,266 (2010 CDN$) (primary analysis) and $27,287 per quality-adjusted life year gained for scenario sub-group 1. Denosumab dominated all therapies in the remaining scenarios. LIMITATIONS: Key limitations include a lack of long-term, real-world, Canadian data on persistence with denosumab as well as an absence of head-to-head clinical data, leaving one to rely on meta-analyses based on trials comparing treatment to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab may be cost-effective compared to oral PMO treatments for women at high risk of fractures and those who are intolerant and/or contraindicated to oral BPs.

Evidence to inform decision makers in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment strategies for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess value for money of providing systematic screening for osteoporosis among postmenopausal women and medical treatments for those diagnosed with osteoporosis as evidence-based decision making for the revision of the National List of Essential Medicines. METHODS: Decision analytic models were constructed, using a societal perspective, to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from systematic screening using the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry alone compared with no screening. Alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, and nasal calcitonin were economically evaluated to determine a treatment of choice for the prevention of osteoporosis-related fractures. Most input parameters were obtained from literature reviews, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses, if available. The service costs and related household expenses were based on the Thai setting. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to incorporate the impact of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool and sequential dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry provided better value for money for osteoporosis screening among young age groups (<60 years old). Although there was no significant difference in cost per QALY for older age groups, alendronate provided the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio while nasal calcitonin presented the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. It was shown that providing medication for a secondary prevention yielded a much higher cost per QALY gained compared with providing medication for a primary prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Given the benchmark set at 100,000 Thai baht per QALY gained, providing systematic screening and treatment for osteoporosis was cost-ineffective in the Thai setting.

Analysis of the comparative effectiveness of 3 oral bisphosphonates in a large managed care organization: adherence, fracture rates, and all-cause cost.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread availability and use of oral bisphosphonates, fracture rates and associated medical costs are still high. Differences in fracture risk among these agents, if any, have not been quantified due to the lack of high-quality, head-to-head, randomized, controlled trials assessing this outcome. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials have shown that alendronate and risedronate reduce rates of both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, whereas only reduction in vertebral fractures has been found for ibandronate. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there were any differences among 3 oral bisphosphonates in adherence, total cost of care, and effectiveness in reducing fracture rates in a large managed care population. METHODS: Administrative, longitudinal pharmacy and medical claims data were obtained from 14 geographically diverse health plans in the United States covering approximately 14 million members. Sampled members had at least 1 pharmacy claim for alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate during the intake period (January 1, 2005, through October 31, 2007). The date of the first pharmacy claim for osteoporosis medications within the intake period was the index date. Members were followed for either 12, 24, or 36 months, depending on length of continuous health plan eligibility. Medication possession ratio (MPR) was measured using a total days supply that was calculated by multiplying the total quantity dispensed by the suggested days supply per unit of dispensing based on manufacturer-recommended dosing. For members who switched bisphosphonate strengths or medications, the estimated days supply was summed for all osteoporosis medications during the follow-up, including overlapping days supply. Outcomes included (a) the first incident fracture and percentages of members with at least 1 fracture after 6 months post-index; (b) the number of days from index to the first incident fracture, measured as time to event in Cox proportional hazards regression analysis; and (c) total all-cause health care costs (health plan allowed amount including member cost share). RESULTS: A total of 45,939 members were included (n = 24,909 alendronate, n = 13,834 risedronate, n = 7,196 ibandronate). In the 12-month analysis, MPRs were comparable (means = 0.57-0.58) for the 3 medications. After 24 months, MPRs had dropped for all medications, but those of both alendronate (mean = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.49-0.50) and risedronate (mean = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.49-0.51) were slightly higher than that of ibandronate (mean = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.46-0.48). At 36 months, again the MPRs had dropped for all 3 medications (means = 0.44-0.47) but were similar. There were no statistically significant differences among agents in the percentages of subjects with at least 1 fracture at 12, 24, or 36 months (36-month rates: alendronate 4.41%, risedronate 4.38%, ibandronate 6.28%, P = 0.102). The numbers of subjects with fracture(s) per month of follow-up were 0.0020 for alendronate, 0.0021 for risedronate, and 0.0022 for ibandronate (P = 0.087 overall). However, after adjusting for member characteristics, alendronate users had a 12% lower risk of experiencing any incident fracture than ibandronate users (hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78-0.99, P = 0.034) within the follow-up period. In the first 12 post-index months, ibandronate users had higher mean [SD] unadjusted total all-cause health care costs ($7,464 [$15,975]) compared with alendronate ($7,233 [$16,671]) and risedronate ($ 6,983 [$16,870], P less than 0.001 for both comparisons), differences of approximately $19 per month and $40 per month, respectively. The results of the unadjusted 24-month analysis were similar, but there were no significant cost differences at 36 months. Total cost differences for the 3 medication groups were nonsignificant at 12, 24, and 36 months after adjusting for member characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database in a large managed care population showed similar rates of adherence and total adjusted all-cause health care costs for alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate. Absolute unadjusted rates of fracture were small and did not significantly differ among agents, but after controlling for differences in member characteristics, the risk of fracture was 12% lower for alendronate users than for ibandronate users.

Cost-effectiveness of Denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

UNLABELLED: Denosumab is an injectable drug that reduces the risk of fractures. The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab in a Swedish setting, also accounting for poor adherence to treatment. Denosumab is cost-effective, particularly for patients at high risk of fracture and low adherence to oral treatments. INTRODUCTION: Denosumab is a novel biologic agent developed for the treatment of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures that has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures in a phase III trial. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab from a societal perspective compared with generic alendronate, branded risedronate, strontium ranelate, and no treatment in a Swedish setting. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab given for up to 5 years to a typical Swedish patient population (women aged 71 years, T-score ≤ -2.5 SD and a prevalence of morphometric vertebral fractures of 34%). The model included treatment persistence and residual effect after discontinuation assumed to be equal to the time on treatment. Persistence with the comparator treatments and with denosumab was derived from prescription data and a persistence study, respectively. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at €27,000, €12,000, €5,000, and €14,000, for denosumab compared with generic alendronate, risedronate, strontium ranelate, and no treatment, respectively. Sub-optimal persistence had the greatest impact in the comparison with generic alendronate, where the difference in drug cost was large. CONCLUSION: Improving persistence with osteoporosis treatment impacts positively on cost-effectiveness with a larger number of fractures avoided in the population targeted for treatment. Denosumab is a cost-effective alternative to oral osteoporosis treatments, particularly for patients at high risk of fracture and low expected adherence to oral treatments.

Risedronate versus alendronate in older patients with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture: an Italian cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of risedronate vs generic alendronate is based on effectiveness data from a large real practice study. Applying a published cost-effectiveness model, we found that risedronate is cost-effective vs generic alendronate in an Italian population aged > or =65 years, and becomes dominant, saving costs and avoiding fractures, in patients aged > or =75 years. The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness and health utility of risedronate vs generic alendronate in clinical practice in Italy, using effectiveness data from the REAL study. METHODS: A pre-existing model of osteoporosis was used to predict numbers of fractures, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs associated with risedronate or alendronate treatment in post-menopausal (PMO) women aged > or =65 years with a previous vertebral fracture, within the Italian National Health System (NHS). Duration of treatment with risedronate or alendronate was assumed to occur for one year and patients were followed for an additional five years to capture longterm costs and outcomes, with a discount rate of 3% for costs and outcomes. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were run. RESULTS: The lower fracture rate among risedronate patients with respect to alendronate patients resulted in savings of euro 19,083, a reduction of 8.91 hip fractures and an associated benefit of 7.46 QALYs, in an Italian cohort of 1,000 patients. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSIONS: This economic analysis showed that risedronate is a cost-effective treatment in a population of Italian women aged 65 years and older at high risk of PMO-related fractures. Risedronate becomes dominant over generic alendronate in patients of 75 years or older and its cost-effectiveness even appears improved in patients with BMD score < or = -3 or < or = -3.5, with/without maternal history of fractures. Risedronate should be considered as a cost-effective option vs generic alendronate, in the Italian NHS' perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate versus risedronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women aged over 75 years.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women aged over 75 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A validated Markov microsimulation model with a Belgian payer's perspective estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of a 3-year strontium ranelate treatment compared with no treatment and with the bisphosphonate risedronate. Data on the effect of both treatments on fracture risk were taken from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Analyses were performed for postmenopausal women aged 75 and 80 years, either with a diagnosis of osteoporosis (i.e. bone mineral density T-score

The cost-effectiveness of risedronate in the UK for the management of osteoporosis using the FRAX.

SUMMARY: The study estimated the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to no treatment in UK women using the FRAX algorithm for fracture risk assessment. A Markov cohort model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness. Risedronate was found cost-effective from the age of 65 years, assuming a willingness to pay for a QALY of 30,000 pounds. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of risedronate for the prevention and treatment in a UK setting using the FRAX algorithm for fracture risk assessment. A further aim was to establish intervention thresholds with risedronate treatment. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of risedronate was compared to no treatment in post-menopausal women with clinical risk factors for fracture using a Markov cohort model populated with data relevant for the UK. The model incorporated the features of FRAX (the WHO risk assessment tool). The analysis had a health care perspective and quality adjusted life years was used as the main outcome measure. RESULTS: Treatment was cost-effective from the age of 65 years, assuming a willingness to pay for a QALY of 30,000 pounds. Treatment was also cost-effective at all ages in women who had previously sustained a fragility fracture or in women with a parental history of hip fracture with a bone mineral density set at the threshold of osteoporosis. At the 30,000 pounds threshold value for a QALY, risedronate was on average found to cost-effective below the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fractures of 13.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Risedronate is a cost-effective agent for the treatment of established osteoporosis (osteoporosis and a prior fragility fracture) in women from the age of 50 years and older and above 65 years in women with osteoporosis alone. The results support the treatment recommendations in recent UK guidelines for osteoporosis.

Comparison of direct health care costs related to the pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis and to the management of osteoporotic fractures among compliant and noncompliant users of alendronate and risedronate: a population-based study.

UNLABELLED: This population-based study aimed to compare direct health care costs related to the pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis and to the management of osteoporotic fractures among compliant and noncompliant users of alendronate and risedronate. During a 2-year follow-up period, compared to those with medication possession ratio (MPR) > or = 80%, women with MPR < 80% incurred significantly higher physician care costs and hospital care costs. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare direct health care costs related to the treatment of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures among compliant and noncompliant users of alendronate and risedronate. METHODS: A cohort of 15,027 women having initiated alendronate or risedronate was identified. MPR and direct health care costs (physician care, hospital care, drugs) were assessed during a 2-year period. Regression models were used to estimate mean predicted cost for compliant (MPR > or = 80%) and noncompliant (MPR < 80%) women. RESULTS: Mean predicted physician care cost (in Canadian dollars) was $51 among women with MPR < 80% and $34 among those with MPR > or = 80%: mean difference $17, 95% confidence interval (CI) $2-22. Mean predicted hospital care cost was $568 among women with MPR < 80% and $379 among those with MPR > or = 80%: mean difference $189, 95% CI $56-320. Mean predicted drug cost was $439 among women with MPR < 80% and $1,068 among those with MPR > or = 80%: mean difference $-639, 95% CI $-649 to -629. CONCLUSION: Compared to compliant women, noncompliant women incurred significantly higher physician care and hospital care costs. Due to lower drug costs, total direct health care costs were lower among noncompliant women.

Therapies for treatment of osteoporosis in US women: cost-effectiveness and budget impact considerations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments for women at high fracture risk and estimate the population-level impact of providing bisphosphonate therapy to all eligible high-risk US women. STUDY DESIGN: Fractures, healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated over 10 years using a Markov model. METHODS: No therapy, risedronate, alendronate, ibandronate, and teriperatide (PTH) were compared among 4 risk groups. Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of model results for 65-year-old women with low bone density and previous vertebral fracture. RESULTS: Women treated with a bisphosphonate experienced fewer fractures and more QALYs compared with no therapy or PTH. Total costs were lowest for the untreated cohort, followed by risedronate, alendronate, ibandronate, and PTH in all risk groups except women aged 75 years with previous fracture. The incremental cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared with no therapy ranged from cost saving for the base case to $66,722 per QALY for women aged 65 years with no previous fracture. Ibandronate and PTH were dominated in all risk groups. (A dominated treatment has a higher cost and poorer outcome.) Treating all eligible women with a bisphosphonate would cost an estimated additional $5563 million (21% total increase) and would result in 390,049 fewer fractures (35% decrease). In the highest risk group, the additional cost of therapy was offset by other healthcare cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis treatment of high-risk women is cost-effective, with bisphosphonates providing the most benefit at lowest cost. For highest risk women, costs are offset by savings from fracture prevention.

The cost-effectiveness of risedronate treatment in Japanese women with osteoporosis.

We constructed a mathematical model for assessing the cost-effectiveness of providing BMD (bone mineral density) scans to Japanese women aged 55 years and over and treating, with risedronate, those that are shown to be osteoporotic. Fracture rates, cost data, utility values, and the increased risks of fractures associated with T-score and vertebral fracture history were taken from published literature. We estimated the cost of fractures avoided due to risedronate treatment, allowing the net changes in cost, incorporating both intervention and fracture costs to be calculated. The QALYs (quality adjusted life years) gained through treatment were calculated enabling cost per QALY ratios to be presented. Further analyses were undertaken assuming treatment was reserved for older women and/or those who had sustained a vertebral fracture in the previous 2 years. Cost per QALY values were inversely related to absolute risk of fracture. Assuming a cost per QALY value threshold of US dollars 100,000, we concluded that providing BMD scans to women aged 70 years and over who had sustained a vertebral fracture in the previous 2 years and treating those that were osteoporotic was cost-effective. However, providing BMD scans for women without a vertebral fracture in the previous 2 years was not cost-effective, even in women aged 85 years and older.

Cost effectiveness and cost utility of risedronate for osteoporosis treatment and fracture prevention in women: a Swiss perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of risedronate compared to no intervention in postmenopausal osteoporotic women in a Swiss perspective. METHODS: A previously validated Markov model was populated with epidemiological and cost data specific to Switzerland and published utility values, and run on a population of 1,000 women of 70 years with established osteoporosis and previous vertebral fracture, treated over 5 years with risedronate 35 mg weekly or no intervention (base case), and five cohorts (according to age at therapy start) with eight risk factor distributions and three lengths of residual effects. RESULTS: In the base case population, the ICER of averting a hip fracture and the ICUR per quality-adjusted life year gained were both dominant. In the presence of a previous vertebral fracture, the ICUR was below euro45,000 (pound30,000) in all the scenarios. For all osteoporotic women>or=70 years of age with at least one risk factor, the ICUR was below euro45,000 or the intervention may even be cost saving. Age at the start of therapy and the fracture risk profile had a significant impact on results. CONCLUSION: Assuming a 2-year residual effect, that ICUR of risedronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis is below accepted thresholds from the age of 65 and even cost saving above the age of 70 with at least one risk factor.

Greater first year effectiveness drives favorable cost-effectiveness of brand risedronate versus generic or brand alendronate: modeled Canadian analysis.

UNLABELLED: The RisedronatE and ALendronate (REAL) study provided a unique opportunity to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses based on effectiveness data from real-world clinical practice. Using a published osteoporosis model, the researchers found risedronate to be cost-effective compared to generic or brand alendronate for the treatment of Canadian postmenopausal osteoporosis in patients aged 65 years or older. INTRODUCTION: The REAL study provides robust data on the real-world performance of risedronate and alendronate. The study used these data to assess the cost-effectiveness of brand risedronate versus generic or brand alendronate for treatment of Canadian postmenopausal osteoporosis patients aged 65 years or older. METHODS: A previously published osteoporosis model was populated with Canadian cost and epidemiological data, and the estimated fracture risk was validated. Effectiveness data were derived from REAL and utility data from published sources. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was estimated from a Canadian public payer perspective, and comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The base case analysis found fewer fractures and more QALYs in the risedronate cohort, providing an incremental cost per QALY gained of $3,877 for risedronate compared to generic alendronate. The results were most sensitive to treatment duration and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The REAL study provided a unique opportunity to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses based on effectiveness data taken from real-world clinical practice. The analysis supports the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to generic or brand alendronate and the use of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporotic Canadian women aged 65 years or older with a BMD T-score < or =-2.5.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments for women with osteoporosis in Canada.

BACKGROUND: During the years following menopause, estrogen levels decline leading to accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures. METHODS: Using a Markov model and decision analytic techniques, the long-term costs and outcomes of five treatment and secondary prevention strategies for osteoporosis were compared: 'no intervention', alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, and raloxifene. The base case analysis examined postmenopausal (65 year old) osteoporotic women without prior fracture. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to incorporate the impact of parameter uncertainty, and deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) was used to compare alternative patient populations and modeling assumptions. Life years and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were used as measures of effectiveness. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, risedronate was dominated by etidronate and alendronate. Alendronate and etidronate were projected to have similar costs and QALYs, and the efficiency frontier was represented by 'no intervention', etidronate, alendronate, and raloxifene (Can$32 571, Can$38 623 and Can$114 070 per QALY respectively). Alternative assumptions of raloxifene's impact on CHD and breast cancer, alternative discount rates and alternative patient risk factors (e.g., starting age of therapy, CHD risk, and prior fracture risk) had significant impacts on the overall cost-effectiveness results for both the bisphosphonates and raloxifene. DISCUSSION: Using conventionally quoted benchmarks and compared to no therapy, alendronate, etidronate, and raloxifene would all be considered cost-effective alternatives for treating women with osteoporosis. Potential limitations of this study include the usual caveats and cautions associated with long-term projection models and the fact that not all inputs into the model are Canadian data sources.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (subject to licensing) for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: Studies that met the review's entry criteria were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analyses provided that they reported fracture incidence in terms of the number of patients suffering fractures. Meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model. A model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions. The model calculated the number of fractures that occurred and provided the costs associated with osteoporotic fractures, and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In addition, the conditions of breast cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) were modelled, as some interventions have been shown to affect the risk of these conditions. RESULTS: Ninety randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. They related to the five interventions (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide) and to five comparators (calcium, calcium plus vitamin D, calcitriol, hormone replacement therapy and exercise), as well as placebo or no treatment. All five interventions have been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in women with severe osteoporosis with adequate calcium intakes. However, none of these drugs has been demonstrated, by direct comparison, to be significantly more effective than either each other or the other active interventions reviewed in this report. The intervention costs of treating all osteoporotic women, for a period of 5 years, were in the region of pound 900-1500 million for alendronate, etidronate, risedronate and raloxifene. The cost per QALY ratios fell dramatically with age. Assuming the risks of a woman with severe osteoporosis at the threshold of osteoporosis, no treatment had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000 at 50 years of age. At 60 years of age, the cost per QALY of raloxifene was pound 26,000 assuming no impact on hip fractures, and pound 31,000 assuming an adverse effect. However, these results are driven by the effect on breast cancer and the assumptions made regarding this disease state. No other intervention had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000. When analyses were conducted assuming that the fracture risk is doubled at each site, alendronate and risedronate had cost per QALY ratios below pound 30,000 at all ages. For women at the threshold of osteoporosis, without a prior fracture and aged 70 years, the cost per QALY of the three bisphosphonates ranged from pound 34,000 to pound 41,000. Raloxifene had a cost per QALY of pound 23,000, assuming no effect on hip fracture, given assumptions regarding breast cancer. At 80 years of age, the cost per QALY of alendronate and risedronate was below pound 20,000. This was true for etidronate when incorporating observational data, but the value rose to pound 69,000 when only RCT data were used. No other intervention had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000. It was assumed that doubling the risk of fracture for women without a prior fracture would give results similar to patients at the threshold of osteoporosis with a prior fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Of the five interventions, only raloxifene appeared to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women unselected for low bone mineral density (BMD). However, as the full data have not been made public, there is some uncertainty regarding this result. None of the five interventions has been shown to reduce the risk of non-vertebral fracture in women unselected for low BMD. All of the proposed interventions provided gains in QALYs compared with no treatment in women with sufficient calcium and vitamin D intakes. The size of the QALY gain for each intervention was strongly related to the age of the patient. The estimated costs varied widely for the interventions. These net costs were markedly different by age, with some interventions becoming cost-saving at higher age ranges in patients with a prior fracture. Areas for future research include: the evidence base for the efficacy of fracture prevention in the very elderly, reanalysis of raloxifene using a dedicated breast cancer and CHD model, and more trials considering the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide.