Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide-to-alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate for osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture in Belgium. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide followed by alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture, from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab is reimbursed in Belgium since December 2021. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and to teriparatide-to-alendronate over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between five different health states every 6 months based on fracture risks or death. The model was populated with Belgium-specific epidemiological and cost data, where available. The fracture risk reduction of romosozumab treatment was collated from the ARCH study, and from a published network meta-analysis. Costs were included from a healthcare perspective (NIHDI). Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), reported in Euro (€) 2022. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: Romosozumab-to-alendronate was associated with 0.12 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €2314 compared to alendronate monotherapy, resulting in an ICER of €19,978. Compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate, romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be dominant, with higher QALYs and lower costs. The base-case results were robust to uncertainty in the input parameters when conducting the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide followed by alendronate for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

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 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.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment of Abaloparatide Followed by Alendronate Versus Teriparatide Followed by Alendronate in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved abaloparatide (ABL) for treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture. With increasing health care spending and drug prices, it is important to quantify the value of newly available treatment options for PMO. OBJECTIVE: To determine cost-effectiveness of ABL compared with teriparatide (TPTD) for treatment of women with PMO in the United States. METHODS: A discrete-event simulation (DES) model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of ABL from the US health care perspective. The model included three 18-month treatment strategies with either placebo (PBO), TPTD, or ABL, all followed by additional 5-year treatment with alendronate (ALN). High-risk patients were defined as women with PMO ⩾65 years old with a prior vertebral fracture. Baseline clinical event rates, risk reductions, and patient characteristics were based on the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, the DES model yielded average total discounted per-patient costs of $10 212, $46 783, and $26 837 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 6.742, 6.781, and 6.792 for PBO/ALN, TPTD/ALN, and ABL/ALN, respectively. Compared with TPTD/ALN, ABL/ALN accrued higher QALYs at lower cost and produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $333 266/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. In high-risk women, ABL/ALN also had more QALYs and less cost over TPTD/ALN and yielded an ICER of $188 891/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. Conclusion and Relevance: ABL is a dominant treatment strategy over TPTD. In women with PMO at high risk of fracture, ABL is an alternative cost-effective treatment.

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus oral alendronate for elderly osteoporotic women in Japan.

We constructed a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling elderly osteoporotic Japanese women without prior hip or vertebral fractures over a lifetime horizon. Compared with weekly oral alendronate for 5 years, denosumab every 6 months for 5 years is cost-saving or cost-effective at a conventionally accepted threshold. INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous denosumab every 6 months for 5 years compared with weekly oral alendronate for 5 years in Japan. METHODS: We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] (2016 US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling osteoporotic Japanese women without prior hip or vertebral fractures at various ages of therapy initiation (65, 70, 75, and 80 years) over a lifetime horizon from three perspectives: societal, healthcare sector, and government. RESULTS: Denosumab was cost-saving compared with alendronate at ages 75 and 80 years from any of the three perspectives. The ICERs of denosumab compared with alendronate were $25,700 and $5000 per QALY at ages 65 and 70 years from a societal perspective and did not exceed a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY from the other two perspectives. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to changes in the effectiveness of denosumab for reducing hip fracture and clinical vertebral fracture and the rate ratio of non-persistence with denosumab compared to alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective compared with alendronate were 89-100% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Among community-dwelling elderly osteoporotic women in Japan, denosumab every 6 months for 5 years is cost-saving or cost-effective at a conventionally accepted threshold of willingness-to-pay at all ages examined, compared with weekly alendronate for 5 years. This study provides insight to clinicians and policymakers regarding the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in elderly women.

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategy for postmenopausal Japanese women.

Although an osteoporosis screening program has been implemented as a health promotion project in Japan, its cost-effectiveness has yet to be elucidated fully. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and found that osteoporosis screening and treatment would be cost-effective for Japanese women over 60 years. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and drug therapy in the Japanese healthcare system for postmenopausal women with no history of fracture. METHODS: A patient-level state transition model was developed to predict the outcomes of Japanese women with no previous fracture. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for women who receive osteoporosis screening and alendronate therapy for 5 years and those who do not receive the screening and treatments. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the screening option compared with the no screening option was estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the influence of parameter uncertainty on the base case results. RESULTS: The ICERs of osteoporosis screening and treatments for Japanese women aged 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and 75-79 years were estimated to be $89,242, $64,010, $40,596, $27,697, $17,027, and $9771 per QALY gained, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that several parameters such as the disutility due to vertebral fracture had a significant influence on the base case results. Applying a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability that the screening option became cost-effectiveness estimated to 50.9, 56.3, 59.1, and 64.7 % for women aged 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and 75-79 years, respectively. Scenario analyses showed that the ICER for women aged 55-59 years with at least one clinical risk factor was below $50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening and alendronate therapy for osteoporosis would be cost-effective for postmenopausal Japanese women over 60 years. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the individual need for osteoporosis screening should be determined by age and clinical risk factors.

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.

Establishing and evaluating FRAX® probability thresholds in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The Taiwanese FRAX® calculator was launched in 2010. However, cost-effectiveness thresholds for the prescription of antiosteoporosis medications were not established. This study aims to establish and evaluate FRAX®-based probability thresholds in Taiwan. METHODS: Using previous data from Taiwan and literature, we determined cost-effectiveness thresholds for prevention of osteoporotic fractures by alendronate with a Markov model, as well as using two other translational approaches. Sensitivity analysis was applied using different alendronate prices. A clinical sample was used to test these Taiwan-specific thresholds by determining the percentages of high-risk patients who would be qualified for current National Health Insurance reimbursement. RESULTS: With the Markov model, the intervention threshold for hip fracture was 7% for women and 6% for men; for major osteoporotic fracture, it was 15% for women and 12.5% for men. Both translational approach models were cost effective only for certain age groups. However, if branded alendronate was reimbursed at 60% of the current price, they became cost effective in almost all age groups. This clinical screening study showed that the National Health Insurance Administration model identified the highest proportion (44%) of patients qualified for National Health Insurance reimbursements, followed by the Markov model (30%), and the United States model (22%). CONCLUSION: Three FRAX®-based models of alendronate use were established in Taiwan to help optimize treatment strategies. The government is encouraged to incorporate FRAX®-based approaches into the reimbursement policy for antiosteoporosis medicines.

[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.

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.

Intervention thresholds for denosumab in the UK using a FRAX®-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

UNLABELLED: The objective was to undertake a health economic analysis of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis in women from the UK, using the FRAX® tool. Denosumab was cost-effective in women with a risk of major osteoporotic fracture meeting or exceeding approximately 20% who are unable to take, comply with or tolerate generic alendronate. INTRODUCTION: Denosumab is a novel biologic agent developed for the treatment of osteoporosis, which has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures in a phase-III trial. The objective of the present study was to undertake a health economic analysis of denosumab in women from the UK. Ten-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture at which denosumab is a cost-effective alternative to no treatment, generic alendronate, risedronate and strontium ranelate were estimated. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted to incorporate fracture and mortality risk assessments based on absolute fracture probability, as estimated by FRAX®. The model included treatment persistence and residual effect after discontinuation. RESULTS: At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year and a 10-year fracture probability equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture, denosumab was cost-effective compared to no treatment from the age of 70 years. At the same WTP, denosumab was-irrespective of age-cost-effective compared to no treatment at a major osteoporotic fracture probability of approximately 20%. Denosumab was estimated to cost-effectively replace strontium, risedronate and generic alendronate at 10-year probabilities exceeding 11, 19 and 32%, respectively. CONCLUSION: FRAX® facilitates the estimation of cost-effectiveness-based intervention thresholds applicable to patients with different combinations of clinical risk factors, which more closely matches the situation in clinical practice. Denosumab is cost-effective in patients with major osteoporotic fracture probabilities meeting or exceeding approximately 20% who are unable to take, comply with or tolerate generic alendronate.

Generic alendronate use among Medicare beneficiaries: are Part D data complete?

BACKGROUND: Generic alendronate was approved in the United States on February 6, 2008. Medicare beneficiaries might pay for generic alendronate out-of-pocket without having claims submitted, resulting in misclassification of generic alendronate use in Medicare data. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the completeness of generic alendronate use in 2008 Medicare Part D data; to identify factors associated with staying on branded alendronate versus switching to a generic product. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries highly adherent (medication possession ratio ≥80%) with branded alendronate during 1/1/06-2/6/07 ("2007 cohort") and during 1/1/07-2/6/08 ("2008 cohort"). The outcome was medication status at the end of follow-up (12/31/2007 or 12/31/2008), classified as continued branded alendronate, switched to generic alendronate, switched to another bisphosphonate or presumed discontinued bisphosphonate therapy. Cox regression estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation in 2008 compared to 2007. Multinomial logistic regression identified factors associated with medication status for the 2008 cohort. RESULTS: Among 15,310 subjects using branded alendronate in the 2008 cohort, 81% switched to generic alendronate. The proportion presumably discontinuing bisphosphonate therapy was 8.9% in 2008 compared to 7.7% in the 2007 cohort (adjusted HR, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.05, 1.26). Factors associated with staying on branded alendronate in 2008 were higher income, eligibility for a low income subsidy and use of Fosamax® plus vitamin D. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of Medicare prescription drug data suggests that the amount of missing claims for generic alendronate in 2008 was not substantial, and misclassification of exposure in studies examining alendronate use post-generic product availability should be minimal.

Cost-effective intervention thresholds against osteoporotic fractures based on FRAX® in Switzerland.

UNLABELLED: FRAX-based cost-effective intervention thresholds in the Swiss setting were determined. Assuming a willingness to pay at 2× Gross Domestic Product per capita, an intervention aimed at reducing fracture risk in women and men with a 10-year probability for a major osteoporotic fracture at or above 15% is cost-effective. INTRODUCTION: The fracture risk assessment algorithm FRAX® has been recently calibrated for Switzerland. The aim of the present analysis was to determine FRAX-based fracture probabilities at which intervention becomes cost-effective. METHODS: A previously developed and validated state transition Markov cohort model was populated with Swiss epidemiological and cost input parameters. Cost-effective FRAX-based intervention thresholds (cost-effectiveness approach) and the cost-effectiveness of intervention with alendronate (original molecule) in subjects with a FRAX-based fracture risk equivalent to that of a woman with a prior fragility fracture and no other risk factor (translational approach) were calculated based on the Swiss FRAX model and assuming a willingness to pay of 2 times Gross Domestic Product per capita for one Quality-adjusted Life-Year. RESULTS: In Swiss women and men aged 50 years and older, drug intervention aimed at decreasing fracture risk was cost-effective with a 10-year probability for a major osteoporotic fracture at or above 13.8% (range 10.8% to 15.0%) and 15.1% (range 9.9% to 19.9%), respectively. Age-dependent variations around these mean values were modest. Using the translational approach, treatment was cost-effective or cost-saving after the age 60 years in women and 55 in men who had previously sustained a fragility fracture. Using the latter approach leads to considerable underuse of the current potential for cost-effective interventions against fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Using a FRAX-based intervention threshold of 15% for both women and men should permit cost-effective access to therapy to patients at high fracture probability based on clinical risk factors and thereby contribute to further reduce the growing burden of osteoporotic fractures in Switzerland.

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.

Influence of socioeconomic factors on the adherence of alendronate treatment in incident users in Norway.

PURPOSE: To examine whether socioeconomic factors influence adherence to alendronate drug treatment among incident users in Norway during 2005-2009. METHODS: The study included 7610 incident alendronate users in 2005 (40-79 years), followed until 31 December 2009. Mean age was 66.6 years, and 86.7% of the patients were women. Data were drawn from the Norwegian Prescription Database and linked to marital status, education and income. Adherence was measured by the medication possession ratio (MPR). MPR was defined as the number of dispensed defined daily doses divided by the number of days each patient was included in the study. A patient was adherent if MPR ≥ 80%. ORs with 95%CI were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among all patients, 45.5% was adherent throughout 4.2 years. A slightly higher proportion of women than men were adherent. Adjusted for all covariates, women aged 70-79 years had an OR of 1.27 (95%CI 1.10-1.45) for adherence compared with those 40-59 years. In women, high household income predicted adherence of alendronate use. In men, a middle educational level compared with a low level, predicted adherence (adjusted OR = 1.47 (95%CI 1.10-1.96)). After adjustments, previous marriage reduced the odds of being adherent compared with present marriage, in both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: In women, the most important factors for being adherent were high age and high income. In men, a middle educational level predicted adherence. Previous marriage reduced the odds of being adherent in both women and men.

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.

Switching from one generic alendronate to another--a common procedure in Poland in the years 2001-2005.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical ambulatory practice, patients often, rather than discontinuing treatment, change to another one. This study aims to assess the reasons why patients with osteoporosis switch from one alendronate to another with a different brand name. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 747 bisphosphonate-treated patients was performed (651 female, average age 67.3 ± 8.9 years, BMI 26.5 ± 4.0 kg/m(2)). The frequency and reasons for drug switching during the 19.4 ± 13.4 months of observation were analysed. RESULTS: In 387 (51.8%) patients, treatment was not changed during the observation period, whereas in 360 (48.2%) patients, at least one drug switch occurred. Almost 40% of patients from that group (138 patients) switched from one alendronate to another alendronate with a different brand name. The most frequent reasons were: adverse event (36.9%), high price of the drug (23.2%) and request of patient (16.7%). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of persistent bisphosphonate-treated patients switch treatment from one alendronate to another. The most frequent reasons for that kind of switching are the occurrence of an adverse event and the high cost of treatment.