Cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide for severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan.

This study assessed the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan, using bone mineral density (BMD) efficacy data. Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower cost than teriparatide/alendronate. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japanese women previously treated with bisphosphonates. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess the relative cost effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab versus 2 years of teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Outcomes for a cohort of women with a mean age of 78 years, a T-score ≤-2.5 and a previous fragility fracture were simulated over a lifetime horizon. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and used a discount rate of 2% per annum. To inform relative fracture incidence, the bone mineral density (BMD) advantage of romosozumab over teriparatide was translated into relative risks of fracture, using relationships provided by a meta-regression of osteoporosis therapy trials. Outcomes were assessed in terms of lifetime costs (2020 US dollars) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Base case results showed that, compared with teriparatide/alendronate, romosozumab/alendronate reduced costs by $5134 per patient and yielded 0.045 additional QALYs. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that results are robust to uncertainty in model assumptions and inputs. CONCLUSION: Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower total cost than teriparatide/alendronate.

A novel economic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-forming agents in the prevention of fractures in patients with osteoporosis.

A novel cost-effectiveness model framework was developed to incorporate the elevated fracture risk associated with a recent fracture and to allow sequential osteoporosis therapies to be evaluated. Treating patients with severe osteoporosis after a recent fracture with a bone-forming agent followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared with antiresorptive therapy alone. Incorporating these novel technical attributes in economic evaluations can support appropriate policy and reimbursement decision-making. PURPOSE: To develop a cost-effectiveness model accommodating increased fracture risk after a recent fracture and treatment sequencing. METHODS: A micro-simulation cost-utility model was developed to accommodate both treatment sequencing and increased risk with recent fracture. The risk of fracture was estimated and simulated using the FRAX® algorithms combined with Swedish registry data on imminent fracture relative risk. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, a sequential treatment starting with a bone-forming agent for 12 months followed by an antiresorptive agent for 48 months initiated immediately after a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) in a 70-year-old woman with a T-score of 2.5 or less was compared to an antiresorptive treatment alone for 60 months. The model was populated with data relevant for a UK population reflecting a personal social service perspective. RESULTS: The cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the base-case setting was estimated at £34,584. Sensitivity analyses revealed the sequential treatment to be cost-saving compared with administering a bone-forming treatment alone. Without simulating an elevated fracture risk immediately after a recent fracture, the cost per QALY changed from £34,584 to £62,184. CONCLUSION: Incorporating imminent fracture risk in economic evaluations has a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness when evaluating fracture prevention treatments in patients with osteoporosis who sustained a recent fracture. Bone-forming treatment followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared to antiresorptive therapy alone depending on treatment acquisition costs.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of hip protector use on a geriatric ward in Germany: a Markov model.

UNLABELLED: In this study, we determined the cost-effectiveness of hip protector use compared with no hip protector on a geriatric ward in Germany. From both the societal and the statutory health insurance (SHI) perspectives, the cost-effectiveness ratios for the provision of hip protectors were below 12,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) even if unrelated costs in added life years were included. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the provision of hip protectors compared with no hip protectors on a geriatric ward in Germany. METHODS: A lifetime decision-analytic Markov model was developed. Costs were measured from the societal and from the statutory health insurance (SHI) perspectives and comprised direct medical, non-medical and unrelated costs in additional life years gained. Health outcomes were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). To reflect several levels of uncertainty, first- and second-order Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) approaches were applied. RESULTS: Hip protector use compared with no hip protector results in savings (costs, -5.1/QALYs, 0.003) for the societal perspective. For the SHI perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 4416 /QALY (costs, +13.4). If unrelated costs in life years gained were included, the cost-effectiveness ratio increases to 9794/QALY for the societal perspective and to 11,426/QALY for the SHI perspective. In the MCS, for the societal perspective without unrelated costs, 47 % of simulations indicated hip protectors to be cost saving (i.e. lower costs and higher effects). CONCLUSION: Although the gain in QALYs due to the provision of providing hip protectors to patients on geriatric wards is small, all scenarios showed acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios or even savings.

Limited economic evidence of carotid artery stenosis diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this article is to assess the availability and validity of economic evaluations of carotid artery stenosis (CS) diagnosis and treatment. DESIGN: Systematic review of economic evaluations of the diagnosis and treatment of CS. METHODS: Systematic review of full economic evaluations published in Medline and Google Scholar up until 28 February 2012. Based on economic checklists (Evers and Philips), the identified studies were classified as high, medium, or low quality. RESULTS: Twenty-three evaluations were identified. The study quality ranged from 26% to 84% of all achievable points (Evers). Seven studies were of high, eight of medium and eight of low quality. No comparison was made between carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) and best medical treatment (BMT). For subjects with severe stenosis, comparisons of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and BMT were also missing. Three of five studies dealing with pre-operative imaging found that duplex Doppler ultrasound (US) was cost-effective compared with carotid angiogram (AG). CONCLUSIONS: There is a huge lack of high-quality studies and of studies that confirm published results. Also, for a given study quality, the most cost-effective treatment strategy is still unknown in some cases ('CAS' vs. 'BMT', 'US combined with magnetic resonance angiography supplemented with AG' vs. 'US combined with computer tomography angiography').

[Cost-effectiveness of prevention of coronary disease in Germany]. / Kosteneffektivität der Prävention der koronaren Herzkrankheit in Deutschland.

It is generally accepted that the incidence of coronary heart disease can effectively be reduced by strengthening prevention. At the same time, it is still unclear how large the effects of life-style oriented preventive measurements such as diet and exercising are in everyday life. Furthermore, there is an ongoing debate on what measurements are effective. Thus, against the background of dwindling financial resources in health care the input of health economic evaluation is explicated. General issues of health economic evaluation are presented. After that, an overview on the current findings of cost-effectiveness in primary prevention of coronary heart disease is given. Risk factors are separately discussed. It is demonstrated that preventive measurements dealing especially with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia can be cost-effective.