Societal costs before and up to 1 year after the first fracture liaison service visit in patients requiring anti-osteoporosis treatments.

This study aimed to estimate societal and healthcare costs incurred before and 1 year after the first fracture liaison services (FLS) visit and to explore differences in fracture type. All costs after 1 year significantly decreased compared to costs preceding the first visit. Fracture type did not significantly affect costs. INTRODUCTION: Limited literature is available on resource utilization and costs of patients visiting fracture liaison services (FLS). This study aimed to estimate the societal and healthcare costs incurred by patients with a recent fracture requiring anti-osteoporosis medication before and 1 year after the first FLS visit and to explore differences according to fracture type. METHODS: Resource utilization was collected through a self-reported questionnaire with a 4-month recall on health resource utilization and productivity losses immediately following the first FLS visit, and 4 and 12 months later. Unit costs derived from the national Dutch guideline for economic evaluations were used to compute societal and healthcare costs. Linear mixed-effect models, adjusted for confounders, were used to analyze societal and healthcare costs over time as well as the effect of fracture type on societal and healthcare costs. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients from two Dutch FLS centers were included, of whom 72 sustained a major fracture (hip, vertebral, humerus, or radius). Societal costs in the 4 months prior to the first visit (€2911) were significantly higher compared to societal costs 4 months (€711, p-value = 0.009) and 12 months later (€581, p-value = 0.001). Fracture type did not have a significant effect on total societal or healthcare costs. All costs 12 months after the initial visit were numerically lower for major fractures compared to others. CONCLUSION: Societal and healthcare costs in the year following the first FLS visit significantly decreased compared to those costs preceding the first visit.

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

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

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.

Assessing the effects of National Health Insurance reimbursement policy revisions for anti-osteoporotic drugs in Korean women aged 50 or older.

INTRODUCTION: The Korean National Health Insurance revised its reimbursement criteria to expand coverage for anti-osteoporotic drug treatments in 2011 (expanding diagnostic criteria and the coverage period for anti-osteoporotic therapy) and 2015 (including osteoporotic fracture patients regardless of bone mineral density). We examined whether the two revisions contributed to an increase in the prescription rates of anti-osteoporotic drugs in Korea. METHODS: We used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-National Patient Sample data from 2010 through 2016. A segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series was performed to assess changes in the monthly prescription rates of anti-osteoporotic drugs among women aged 50 or older, defined as the proportion of elderly women prescribed with anti-osteoporotic drugs. RESULTS: Both the levels (i.e., abrupt jump or drop) and the trends (i.e., slope) of the prescription rates of anti-osteoporotic drugs in the general population, osteoporotic patients, and osteoporotic fracture patients showed no significant changes after the first revision. However, there was a significant increase in the trends in the general population (ß = 0.0166, p = 0.0173) and in osteoporotic patients (ß = 0.1128, p = 0.0157) after the second revision. Women aged 65 to 79 years were the most significantly increased group in terms of the treatment proportion after the second revision because the trend was significant after the second revision in all three study populations (ß = 0.0300, 0.1212, 0.1392, respectively; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the two revisions expanded reimbursement coverage, only the second revision on reimbursing based on osteoporotic fracture regardless of bone mineral density was associated with increasing the proportion of post-menopausal women being treated with anti-osteoporotic drugs.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions to improve osteoporosis care in France.

Osteoporosis (OP) is responsible for an important economic burden, but OP care is far from meeting therapeutic guidelines. Some interventions were effective to improve OP management. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Structural interventions and interventions consisting in sending educational material were dominant strategies. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis (OP) causes many osteoporotic fractures worldwide and an important economic burden as a result. OP care is far from meeting treatment guidelines, but in a recent meta-analysis, we showed that some interventions were effective to improve appropriate bone mineral density (BMD) and treatment prescriptions. In the context of limited resources, it is of major importance to measure these interventions' efficiency. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of existing effective intervention types. METHODS: We used a decision tree incorporating Markov models to compare costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life-years or QALYs) between usual care and three intervention types: structural (I), direct educational through conversation (II), and indirect educational by sending material (III). We adopted the collectivity perspective and chose a 30-year time horizon. The model included efficacy of interventions and risk of further fracture or death, depending on BMD T-score results and OP management, obtained from published literature. The model was populated to reflect a French setting. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Costs were presented in 2018 euros (€). RESULTS: Interventions type I and III were dominant strategies compared with usual care (cost-saving with a QALY gain). Our results were consistent through sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that structural interventions and indirect interventions to improve OP care (BMD and OP treatment prescription), in women 50 years old with a first fragility fracture, were dominant strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide followed by alendronate vs. alendronate monotherapy in women at increased risk of fracture: A US payer perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Emerging evidence supports sequential therapy with anabolic followed by antiresorptive in patients at high-risk of fragility fractures. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) followed by alendronate (ALN) [(ABL/ALN)] compared to ALN monotherapy and to sequential treatment starting with antiresorptive therapy (ALN/ABL/ALN). METHODS: A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential ABL/ALN compared to ALN monotherapy and to sequential ALN/ABL/ALN from a lifetime US payer perspective. In line with practice guidelines, patients were assumed to receive ABL for 18 months followed by 5 years of ALN, or ALN monotherapy for 5 years, or a sequence of ALN for 2 years followed by 18 months of ABL and then by 3 years ALN. Evaluation was conducted for patients aged 50-80 years old with a BMD T-score ≤-3.5 and without a history of prior fracture, or with a T-score between -2.5 and -3.5 and a history of ≥ 1 osteoporotic fracture. RESULTS: Sequential ABL/ALN was cost-effective (threshold of US$150,000 per QALY) vs generic ALN monotherapy in women ≥60 years with a BMD T-score ≤-3.5 and in women with BMD T-score between -2.5 and -3.5 and history of osteoporotic fracture. In all simulated populations, sequential ABL/ALN therapy was dominant (lower costs, more QALYs) compared with sequential ALN/ABL/ALN, resulting from limited effect of ABL in patients previously treated with an antiresorptive agent. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential ABL/ALN therapy is cost-effective vs ALN monotherapy for US postmenopausal women aged ≥60 years at increased risk of fractures.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for high-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Thailand.

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture in Thailand.Materials and methods: A published Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model was populated with country-specific data as available and other published data as needed. The model used a societal perspective, lifetime horizon, efficacy data from network meta-analysis of trials, and included costs for direct medical and non-medical care, informal care, and osteoporosis treatments to compare denosumab to no pharmacologic treatment (calcium and vitamin D supplements only) and to oral weekly alendronate. The base case (high-risk population) included postmenopausal women with femoral neck T-score ≤-2.5, mean age 65 years at entry, and history of vertebral fracture.Results: High-risk women with osteoporosis using denosumab had the greatest number of life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with higher reductions in hip and vertebral fracture incidence compared with patients with no pharmacologic treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 119,575 Thai Baht (THB) per QALY for denosumab versus no pharmacologic treatment and 199,186 THB per QALY for denosumab versus alendronate. Among Thai postmenopausal women with high-risk of fractures, denosumab was cost-effective compared with no pharmacologic treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed models were most sensitive to changes in denosumab pricing.Limitations: Data from other countries used when country-specific data were unavailable may not accurately reflect the true experience in Thailand. The model focused explicitly on hip, vertebral, and wrist fractures, and therefore provides a conservative estimate of the overall potential impact of osteoporosis-related fracture. The fracture risk was not adjusted to reflect potential changes in risk after denosumab treatment discontinuation.Conclusions: In Thailand, denosumab offers a cost-effective osteoporosis treatment option versus no pharmacologic treatment in postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture.

Cost-effectiveness of five versus ten years of alendronate treatment prior to drug holiday for women with osteoporosis.

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing 5 versus 10 years of alendronate treatment prior to 5-year drug holiday for US postmenopausal women with hip BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5. We found that for most postmenopausal women 5 years of treatment prior to drug holiday is the more effective and cost-effective option. INTRODUCTION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 5 versus 10 years of alendronate treatment prior to 5-year drug holiday for postmenopausal osteoporotic women. METHODS: We created an individual-level state-transition microsimulation model to compare 3 treatment strategies for US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and femoral neck BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5 at baseline: recurrent periods of 5 years of alendronate followed by 5 years of drug holiday (alendronate 5/5), recurrent periods of 10 years of alendronate followed by 5 years of drug holiday (alendronate 10/5), and no alendronate treatment. RESULTS: Base-case analysis revealed for women initiating treatment at ages 50, 60, and 70, the alendronate 5/5 strategy dominated (was more effective and less costly than) the alendronate 10/5 strategy and no treatment. For women age 80, the alendronate 10/5 strategy dominated. When assuming a lower relative risk of nonvertebral fracture during years 6-10 of alendronate treatment than the base-case assumption, the alendronate 10/5 strategy became the most cost-effective strategy even at younger treatment initiation ages. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings; for treatment initiation ages of 50, 60, and 70, the alendronate 5/5 strategy was favored, whereas for treatment initiation age of 80, the alendronate 10/5 strategy was favored; however, there was uncertainty in these findings. CONCLUSIONS: After 5 years of alendronate treatment, younger postmenopausal women (ages 50-70) with osteoporosis would likely benefit from a drug holiday, whereas older women (age 80) are likely to benefit from treatment for 10 years before a drug holiday.

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

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

Predicting the intervention threshold for initiating osteoporosis treatment among postmenopausal women in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data.

This study built a micro-simulation Markov model to determine the treatment threshold of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in Mainland China. Treatment with zoledronate is cost-effective when FRAX-based (Fracture risk assessment tool) fracture probability is over 7%. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to estimate FRAX-based fracture probabilities in Mainland China using real-world data, at which intervention could be cost-effective. METHODS: We developed a micro-simulation Markov model to capture osteoporosis states and relevant morbidities including hip fracture, vertebral fracture, and wrist fracture. Baseline characteristics including incidences of osteoporosis and distribution of risk factors were derived from the Peking Vertebral Fracture study, the largest prospective cohort study of postmenopausal women in Mainland China. We projected incidences of fractures and deaths by age groups under two treatment scenarios: 1) no treatment, and 2) zoledronate. We also projected total quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and total costs including fracture management and osteoporosis drugs for cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost-effective intervention thresholds were calculated based on the Chinese FRAX model. RESULTS: Treatment with zoledronate was cost-effective when the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture based on FRAX was above 7%. The FRAX threshold increased by age from 51 to 65 years old, and decreased in elder age groups, ranging from 4% to 9%. CONCLUSIONS: Using real-world data, our model indicated that widespread use of zoledronate was of both clinical and economic benefit among Chinese postmenopausal women. Using a FRAX-based intervention threshold of 7% with zoledronate should permit cost-effective access to therapy to patients and contribute to reducing the disease burden of osteoporosis in Mainland China.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological fracture prevention for osteoporosis as prescribed in clinical practice in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in the five largest European countries (EU5) using the IOF reference cost-effectiveness model. Pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in clinical practice was cost-saving (provided more QALYs at lower costs) compared to no treatment in each of the EU5. PURPOSE: To estimate the real-world cost-effectiveness of pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in the five largest European countries by population size: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK) (collectively EU5). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed sales data on osteoporosis drugs in each of the EU5 to derive a hypothetical intervention that corresponds to the mix of osteoporosis medication prescribed in clinical practice. The costs for this treatment mix were obtained directly from the sales data, and the efficacy of the treatment mix was estimated by weighing the treatment-specific fracture risk reductions from a published meta-analysis. Subsequently, we estimated the cost-effectiveness using costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) of the intervention compared to no treatment in each of the EU5 using the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) reference cost-effectiveness model. The model population comprised postmenopausal women, mean age 72 years with established osteoporosis (T-score ≤ - 2.5) among whom 23.6% had a prevalent vertebral fracture. The model was populated with country-specific data from the literature. RESULTS: Pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in clinical practice was cost-saving (provided more QALYs at lower costs) compared to no treatment in each country. The findings were robust in scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in clinical practice is cost-saving in each of the EU5. Because of the under-diagnosis and under-treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis, from a health economic perspective, further cost-savings may be reached by expanding treatment to those at increased risk of fracture currently not receiving any treatment.

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of antiosteoporosis strategies for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in China.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis has become an important public health problem in China, especially among elderly postmenopausal women. Massive amounts of medical and health resources have been devoted to patients with osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of alendronate, zoledronate, raloxifene, teriparatide, and calcium/vitamin D as treatments for osteoporosis in elderly postmenopausal women in China from the medical system perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed by using TreeAge Pro 2015 software. This model simulated the disease process over 40 years in response to the five investigated therapeutic strategies. Each cycle lasted for 1 year. The model parameters included Chinese epidemiological data, clinical effectiveness, cost, and utility. Total treatment costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated, and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the model. RESULTS: The calcium/vitamin D strategy, zoledronate, alendronate, teriparatide, and raloxifene offered patients 10.24, 10.83, 10.70, 10.88, and 10.54 QALYs at the cost of $3,799.72, $8,425.61, $9,849.89, $34,843.72, and $13,353.33 for over 40 years, respectively. The alendronate and raloxifene strategies were eliminated because they were less effective and more expensive than the other strategies. The base-case analysis revealed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the zoledronate strategy relative to those of the calcium/vitamin D strategy were $7,864.59/QALY. This result indicated that the zoledronate strategy was more cost-effective than other strategies and was within the willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($28,624/QALY). The ICERs of the teriparatide versus zoledronate strategies were $4,70,797.08/QALY, which exceeded the threshold. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Chinese medical system, zoledronate is more cost-effective than the calcium/vitamin D strategy, alendronate, raloxifene, and teriparatide for the treatment of osteoporosis in elderly postmenopausal women. Not factoring the parameters of adherence and persistence in, and consequent variability in treatment effectiveness relative risks, seems like a major limitation, but it can be speculated that it would not change the conclusion that zoledronate is the most economical strategy.

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

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

Evaluation of Treatment Patterns and Costs in Patients with Prostate Cancer and Bone Metastases.

BACKGROUND: There are a lack of guideline recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) undergoing treatment progression and sequencing. Understanding treatment patterns and associated utilization and costs may help inform stakeholders and guide decision making. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns and health care costs in prostate cancer (PC) patients with bone metastases treated with agents approved by the FDA for mCRPC. METHODS: 2 large integrated claims databases (MarketScan and PharMetrics) were used to identify males aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed and treated for PC (ICD-9-CM code 185.xx or 233.4) with bone metastases (ICD-9-CM code 198.5) from June 2013 to September 2014. Patients were required to be continuously enrolled for ≥ 6 months before and after initiation of treatment with abiraterone, cabazitaxel, docetaxel, enzalutamide, mitoxantrone, radium-223, sipuleucel-T, or other chemotherapy. Study endpoints included lines of therapy, health care resource utilization per patient per month (PPPM), PPPM costs, and mortality rate. Descriptive analysis was completed for the study sample, and survival function was calculated via Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: There were 953 patients meeting all inclusion criteria in the MarketScan database and 565 patients in the PharMetrics database. The median follow-up time was 18 months (interquartile range [IQR] = 14-23) for MarketScan and 14 months (IQR = 11-18) for PharMetrics. Mean age (SD) was 71 (± 10.7) and 66 (± 9.3) years, respectively. Before mCRPC treatment initiation, patients received palliative radiation therapy and bone antiresorptive therapy. For MarketScan and PharMetrics, respectively, 14.0% and 18.2% of patients received radiation therapy, 36.1% and 40.0% received denosumab; 16.5% and 16.8% received zoledronic acid; and 0.2% and 0.8% received pamidronate. Across both databases, abiraterone was the most commonly received bone metastasis treatment agent across all lines of therapy, except fourth line. Radium-223, cabazitaxel, and mitoxantrone were the least utilized therapies. The median cost PPPM during the post-index period was $10,916 (IQR=$5,334-$13,457) in MarketScan and $10,292 (IQR = $7,245-$14,699) in PharMetrics. The cost PPPM during the 6-month pre-index period was $2,643 (IQR = $850-$4,357) in MarketScan and $2,742 (IQR = $1,484-$4,730) in PharMetrics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were treated mainly with abiraterone across most lines of care, with radium-223, cabazitaxel, and mitoxantrone as the least utilized therapies. Median costs PPPM increased by approximately $8,900 after initiation of FDA-approved agents for mCRPC, with the largest increase in cost stemming from oral medications. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. All authors were employees at Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals at the time this study was conducted. This study was presented as a poster at the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium; February 16-18, 2017; Orlando, FL.

Cost-effectiveness of gastro-resistant risedronate tablets for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

The use of gastro-resistant risedronate, a convenient dosing regimen for oral bisphosphonate therapy, seems a cost-effective strategy compared with weekly alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France. INTRODUCTION: Gastro-resistant (GR) risedronate tablets are associated with improved persistence compared to common oral bisphosphonates but are slightly more expensive. This study assessed its cost-effectiveness compared to weekly alendronate and generic risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France. METHODS: A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was used to estimate the lifetime costs (expressed in €2017) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of GR risedronate compared with weekly alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment. Pooled efficacy data for bisphosphonates derived from a previous meta-analysis were used for all treatment options, and persistence data (up to 3 years) were obtained from a large Australian longitudinal study. Evaluation was done for high-risk women 60-80 years of age, with a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤ - 2.5 and/or prevalent vertebral fractures. RESULTS: In all of the simulated populations, GR risedronate was cost-effective compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment at a threshold of €60,000 per QALY gained. In women with a BMD T-score ≤ - 2.5 and prevalent vertebral fractures, the cost per QALY gained of GR risedronate compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment falls below €20,000 per QALY gained. In women aged 75 years and older, GR risedronate was even shown to be dominant (more QALYs, less costs) compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first economic results about GR risedronate, suggesting that it represents a cost-effective strategy compared with weekly alendronate and generic risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

Cost-effectiveness of implementing guidelines for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in Japan.

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the clinical guideline for the treatment for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO). The treatment indication for GIO in the current Japanese clinical guidelines is likely to be cost-effective except for the limited patients who are at low risk for fracture. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the clinical guideline for the treatment for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system. METHODS: A patient-level state transition model was developed to predict lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in postmenopausal Japanese women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using glucocorticoid (GC). An annual discount rate of 2% for both costs and QALYs was applied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 5-year alendronate therapy compared with no therapy was estimated with different combinations of the risk factors such as starting age (45, 55, or 65), femoral neck BMD (% young adult mean (YAM) of 70%, 75%, or 80%), dose of GC (2.5, 5, or 10 mg per day), and the presence of previous fracture (yes or no). RESULTS: For 55-year-old women using GC with a BMD of 75% of YAM, the ICER ranged from $10,958 to $ 29,727 per QALY. Scenario analyses indicated that the lower age, the lower BMD, the higher dose of GC, and the presence of previous fracture associated with lower ICER. The best-case scenario was 45-year-old women with a BMD of 70% of YAM, GC dose of 10 mg per day, and previous fracture, and resulted in healthcare cost-savings. The worst-case scenario was 65-year-old women with a BMD of 80% of YAM, GC dose of 2.5 mg per day, and no previous fracture, and resulted in the ICER of $66,791 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses in the worst-case scenario showed that the annual discount rate for costs and health benefit had the strong influence on the estimated ICER. Although the ICER was influenced by other parameters such as disutility due to vertebral fracture, efficacy of alendronate, and so on, the ICERs remained more than $50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of preventive alendronate therapy for postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using GC is sensitive to age, BMD, GC dose, and the presence of previous fracture. Our analysis suggested that the treatment indication for postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using GC in the current Japanese clinical guidelines is likely to be cost-effective except for the limited patients who are at low risk for fracture.

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.