A comparison of the effectiveness and cost of treatment for vertebral fractures in women

Minimally Important Difference for Patient-reported Outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis: Health Assessment Questionnaire and Pain, Fatigue, and Global Visual Analog Scales

Objective.

To determine the minimally important difference (MID) for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), pain, fatigue, sleep, and global visual analog scale (VAS; 0–100 mm) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) using a patient-reported overall health status anchor. Patient-reported outcomes are often used to gauge the effect of PsA in clinical trials. There is currently no knowledge about the MID for patient-reported outcomes in PsA.

Methods.

Patients with a diagnosis of PsA who had answered questions about outcomes at 2 consecutive visits and an overall health status question (“How would you describe your overall status since your last visit: much better, better, the same, worse, much worse?”) were included. MID was calculated as the mean change between visits for those who rated their disease as “better” or “worse.”

Results.

Two hundred patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 17.5% rated their status as “better” and 25.0% rated their status as “worse” than the previous visit. MID estimates for improvement/worsening (SD) respectively were −0.131 (0.411)/0.131 (0.309) for HAQ-DI, −9.37 (24.37)/13.96 (22.05) for pain VAS, −8.15 (23.52)/3.63 (27.62) for fatigue VAS, −10.97 (29.74)/13.81 (27.32) for sleep VAS, and −8.41 (21.17)/11.53 (21.03) for global VAS. Spearman’s r correlation coefficients between the anchor and mean change were 0.374 (HAQ-DI), 0.448 (pain VAS), 0.239 (fatigue VAS), 0.326 (sleep VAS), 0.490 (global VAS); p < 0.01.

Conclusion.

This is the first study investigating MID of patient-reported outcomes in PsA. MID for HAQ-DI, pain, and global VAS were shown to be the best predictors for a patient’s perception of overall changes in disease status.

Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) 2008

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) is an international group dedicated to improving the lives of patients suffering from psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). At the 2008 annual meeting of GRAPPA in Leeds, United Kingdom, members reviewed the status of imaging, including a new ultrasound measure, ultra-short echo time (UTE), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in PsA and the imaging of musculoskeletal tissues in psoriasis; discussed the value and current status of composite measures for the assessment of PsA, including a breakout session where members addressed several issues related to developing PsA-specific composite measures; and reviewed biomarker development in psoriatic disease, including an interactive section on design considerations for a longitudinal study of biomarkers for joint damage. Summaries of those discussions are presented in this supplement.

Does the funding source influence the results in economic evaluations? A case study in bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis

Research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is often assumed to be more likely to report favourable cost-effectiveness results. To determine whether there was a relationship between the source of funding and the reporting of positive results. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify economic evaluations of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. We extracted the source of funding, region of study, the journal name and impact factor, and all reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We identified which ICERs were under the thresholds of $US20 000, $US50 000 and $US100 000 per QALY. A quality score between 0 and 7 was also given to each of the studies. We used generalized estimating equations for the analysis. The systematic review yielded 532 potential abstracts; 17 of these met our final eligibility criteria. Ten studies (59%) were funded by non-industry sources. A total of 571 ICERs were analysed. There was no significant difference between the number of industry- and non-industry-funded studies reporting ICERs below the thresholds of $US20 000 and $US50 000. However, industry-sponsored studies were more likely to report ICERs below $US100 000 (odds ratio = 4.69, 95% CI 1.77, 12.43). Studies of higher methodological quality (scoring >4.5 of 7) were less likely to report ICERs below $US20 000 and $US50 000 than studies of lower methodological quality (scores <4). Methodological quality was not significantly different between studies reporting ICERs under $US100 000. In this relatively small sample of studies of bisphosphonates, the funding source (industry vs non-industry) did not seem to significantly affect the reporting of ICERs below the $US20 000 and $US50 000 thresholds. We hypothesize that methodological quality might be a more significant factor than the source of funding in differentiating which studies are likely to report favourable ICERs, with the higher-quality studies significantly less likely to report ICERs below $US20 000 and $US50 000 per QALY. Further research should explore this finding.

The impact of fewer hip fractures with risedronate versus alendronate in the first year of treatment: modeled German cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The Risedronate and Alendronate (REAL) cohort study provides unique comparative effectiveness data for real world bisphosphonate treatment of osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to generic alendronate in Germany applying the REAL effectiveness data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A validated Markov model of osteoporosis was populated with REAL effectiveness data and German epidemiological, cost, and utility data. To estimate the impact of therapy on hip fractures, costs, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs), the analysis included women>or=65 years, treated with risedronate or alendronate and followed for 4 additional years. Country-specific data included population mortality, fracture costs, and annual drug costs, using a German social insurance perspective. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. A differential hip fracture relative risk reduction of 43% was applied to risedronate vs. alendronate.

RESULTS

The model predicted that treatment with risedronate would result in fewer hip fractures and more QALYs at a reduced cost (savings of euro278 per treated woman) compared to treatment with generic alendronate. Sensitivity analysis assuming 2 years of treatment and equivalence of effect after 1 year show cost savings as well (euro106 per treated woman).

DISCUSSION

Whereas previous economic evaluations involving bisphosphonates have mainly relied on efficacy data from noncomparative clinical trials, this study's strength is in the use of comparative effectiveness data from one data source. The magnitude of the cost savings observed were sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding treatment duration, therapy discontinuation and cost of generic alendronate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on "real world" data the analysis supports the first line use of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporotic women in Germany.

The cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: a structured review of the literature

Osteoporotic fragility fractures constitute a significant public health concern. The lifetime risk of any osteoporotic fracture is very high (40-50% in women and 13-22% in men). Fractures are associated with significant mortality and morbidity and represent a substantial economic burden to society. Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate and ibandronate) are indicated for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis but are costly compared with other treatments, such as vitamin D and calcium. Our search identified 23 studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonate therapy for the treatment and prevention of fragility fractures; these studies were from five geographical areas and employed a variety of comparators and assumptions. We identified 11 studies investigating bisphosphonates in women with low bone mineral density (BMD) [T-score >2.5 standard deviations {SDs} below normal {mean} peak values for young adults] and previous fractures, five studies investigating bisphosphonates in women with low BMD and no previous fracture, one study of bisphosphonates in women with osteopenia, five studies involving screening and two studies of bisphosphonates in special populations (women initiating corticosteroid treatment and men). In women with low BMD and previous fractures, bisphosphonate therapy was most cost effective in populations aged > or =70 years and was unlikely to be cost effective in populations aged < or =50 years. There was uncertainty concerning the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in such populations aged 60-69 years. In women with low BMD without previous fractures, treatment with alendronate or risedronate appeared to be cost effective across countries (UK, US, Denmark), but there was some uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of etidronate in patients in the highest age groups. Identifying risk factors for fractures through means such as spine radiographs to detect vertebral deformities improves the cost effectiveness of treatment. In women with osteopenia, alendronate therapy may be cost effective in women with a T-score of -2.4SD in the US. Screening for low BMD and treatment with alendronate or etidronate appears to be cost effective in postmenopausal women in general and in women with rheumatoid arthritis initiating corticosteroid therapy. Alendronate therapy without screening was also shown to be potentially cost effective in certain at-risk male populations, as well as in women initiating corticosteroid therapy after the age of 40 years. Decision makers in the US, UK and Sweden should consider funding the use of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in women aged >70 years, particularly if they have other risk factors for fracture. Further studies are required to make more definitive conclusions in other countries and patient populations. Screening strategies for low BMD followed by bisphosphonate treatment should also be considered in the general female population aged >65 years in the UK and US and in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating corticosteroid therapy.

Economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: a structured review of the literature

Economic evaluations are increasingly being used by decision-makers to estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions. The objective of this study was to conduct a structured review of economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and treat osteoporosis. Articles were identified independently by two reviewers through searches on MEDLINE, the bibliographies of reviews and identified economic models, and expert opinion, using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on country, type and level of interventions, type of fractures, interventions, study population and the authors' stated conclusions were extracted. Forty-two relevant studies were identified. The majority of studies (71%) were conducted in Sweden, the UK and the US. The main interventions investigated were hormone replacement therapy (27%), bisphosphonates (17%) and combinations of vitamin D and calcium (16%). In 38% of studies, hip fracture was the sole fracture outcome. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of studies investigated female populations only. A relatively large number of economic evaluations were identified in the field of osteoporosis. Major changes have recently occurred in the treatment of this disease, following the publication of the results of the Women's Health Initiative trial. Methodological developments in economic evaluations, such as the use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, have also taken place. Such changes are reflected in the studies that were reviewed. The development of economic models should be an iterative process that incorporates new information, whether clinical or methodological, as it becomes available.

Assessing generalisability in model-based economic evaluation studies: a structured review in osteoporosis

To support decision making, many countries have now introduced some formal assessment process to evaluate whether health technologies represent good 'value for money'. These often take the form of decision models that can be used to explore elements of importance to generalisability of study results across clinical settings and jurisdictions. The objective of this review was to assess whether articles reporting decision-analytic models in the area of osteoporosis provided enough information to enable decision makers in different countries/jurisdictions to fully appreciate the variability of results according to location and be able to apply the evaluation to their own setting. Of the 18 articles included in the review, only three explicitly stated the decision-making audience. It was not possible to infer a decision-making audience in eight studies. The target population was well reported, as were resource and cost data, and clinical data used for estimates of relative risk reduction. However, baseline risk was rarely adapted to the relevant jurisdiction, and when no decision maker was explicit it was difficult to assess whether the reported cost and resource use data were in fact relevant. A few studies used sensitivity analysis to explore elements of generalisability, such as compliance rates and baseline fracture risk rates, although such analyses were generally restricted to evaluating parameter uncertainty. This review found that variability in cost effectiveness across locations is addressed to a varying extent in modelling studies in the field of osteoporosis, limiting their use for decision makers across different locations. Transparency of reporting is expected to increase as methodology develops and decision makers publish 'reference case' type guidance.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of clinical and public health measures

Cost-effectiveness analysis, an analytic tool that expresses as a ratio the cost of obtaining an additional unit of health outcome, can help decision makers achieve more health protection for the same or less cost. We characterize the state of the cost-effectiveness analysis literature by reviewing how this technique is applied to various clinical and public health interventions. We describe the results of cost-effectiveness analyses for over 40 interventions to reduce cancer, heart disease, trauma, and infectious disease. The cost-effectiveness ratios for these interventions vary enormously, from interventions that save money to those that cost more than $1 million per year of life gained. The methods used to derive the cost-effectiveness ratios also vary considerably, and we summarize this variation within each health area. Greater uniformity of analytical practice will be necessary if cost-effectiveness analysis is to become a more influential tool in debates about resource allocation.

The management of osteoporosis

The management of osteoporosis used to centre upon investigation and treatment of patients with fracture. The spectrum has now widened to include the detection of patients at high risk of fracture before a fracture occurs. This is best achieved by consideration of clinical risk factors and the selective use of bone densitometry. The frequency of osteoporotic fractures in elderly women is such that detailed investigation of such patients is often not necessary unless the patient's bone density is outside the normal range for age. When bone density is inexplicably low, secondary causes of osteoporosis should be sought by appropriate investigations. Fracture prevention involves a correction of lifestyle factors (stopping smoking, moderating alcohol intake etc.) and achieving a total calcium intake of 1-1.5 g/day. The first line for pharmacological intervention is hormone replacement therapy because of its proven efficacy and the extensive data available documenting its safety. The bisphosphonates have comparable effects on bone density and fractures in studies extending for up to 3 years, and are increasingly used, particularly in older patients and those reluctant to take hormone replacement therapy. Other available agents have significant drawbacks, either with respect to side-effects or inconsistent documentation of efficacy and should be used only in special circumstances.

Economic evaluation of interventions in endocrinology

This article provides a review of methods for conducting cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit studies. Economic evaluations of interventions designed to improve outcomes of patients with diabetes and osteoporosis are reviewed, and key issues for future research are discussed. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in reimbursement decision making at the public and private levels is explored.

Intranasal salcatonin (salmon calcitonin). A review of its pharmacological properties and role in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a common problem among postmenopausal women and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and costs primarily resulting from osteoporotic fractures. Salcatonin (salmon calcitonin) inhibits osteoclastic bone resorption and is approximately 40 to 50 times more potent than human calcitonin. In most randomised trials in which intranasal salcatonin (usually 50 to 200 IU/day plus oral calcium supplements) was administered for 1 to 5 years to postmenopausal women for prevention of osteoporosis, bone mineral density or content of the lumbar spine increased by approximately 1 to 3% from baseline. In contrast, postmenopausal women receiving only oral calcium supplements typically had reductions in bone mineral density or content of about 3 to 6%. The difference between treatment groups was statistically significant in essentially all studies. Although changes in bone mineral density or content were broadly similar in studies of postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis to those in postmenopausal women receiving therapy for prevention of the disease, studies in women with established osteoporosis did not usually demonstrate statistically significant differences between treatment groups. Also in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, intranasal salcatonin reduced pain and/or analgesic consumption in some trials and, in a limited number of studies of relatively short duration (i.e. < or = 2 years), the incidence of osteoporotic fractures. A large multicentre 5-year study with adequate statistical power to confirm the effect of intranasal salcatonin on reducing osteoporotic fracture rates in postmenopausal women is currently under way. The intranasal formulation of salcatonin offers a more convenient and better tolerated alternative to the parenteral formulation of the drug which is administered by regular subcutaneous or intramuscular injections. Adverse events associated with the intranasal formulation are generally mild and transient, usually involving local reactions such as nasal discomfort, rhinorrhoea or rhinitis. Thus, for postmenopausal women unable or unwilling to tolerate long term hormone replacement therapy, intranasal salcatonin is an attractive alternative for the management of osteoporosis.