Potential cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women

The Economic Burden of Severe Osteoporotic Fractures in the French Healthcare Database: The FRACTOS Study

Osteoporosis carries a high medical, economic, and societal burden principally because of the risk of severe fractures. The objective of this cost-of-illness study was to describe health resource utilization and associated costs in all patients aged ≥50 years hospitalized for a severe osteoporotic fracture over a 6-year period (2009 to 2014) in France. Data were extracted from the French national healthcare database (SNDS) on all health care resource utilization between the index date (date of hospitalization for first fracture during the enrollment period) and study end (December 31, 2016) or until the patient died. Costing was restricted to direct costs and determined from the payer perspective. Variables related to costs were identified through multivariate logistic regression analysis. A total of 356,895 patients were included (median follow-up 39.1 months). In the year after the index fracture, 36,622 patients (10.5%) were rehospitalized for a fracture-related reason. Only 18,474 (5.3%) underwent bone densitometry and 58,220 (16.7%) received a specific treatment. The total annual per capita osteoporosis-related cost in the year after the index severe osteoporotic fracture was €18,040 (from €8598 for multiple ribs to €21,085 for hip fracture) of which €17,905 was incurred by fracture-related costs. The cost incurred by management of osteoporosis was €135. Over years 2 to 5, the mean annual per capita costs of fracture treatment (€806, mostly attributable to the treatment of refractures) continued to dominate those of osteoporosis management (€99). Total annual cost of care was €1260 million (year 2014). Variables associated with higher cost were older age, male sex, site of fracture, a history of prior osteoporotic fracture, and the number of refracture events. The 5-year cost of severe osteoporotic fractures to the French health care system is high and mostly attributable to the treatment of refractures. Improved fracture prevention measures in patients with osteoporosis is crucial to reduce the economic burden of the disease. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab for osteoporosis: a systematic review

This paper systematically reviewed and assessed all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis. Denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

There are many pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for osteoporosis. However, the corresponding reviews are outdated or incomplete and need to be updated and refined. This article aims to systematically review and evaluate all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies of denosumab for osteoporosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed utilizing PubMed, EMBASE(Ovid), Proquest(EconLit), Chongqing VIP, WanFang Database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify full-text articles published before September 2021. The quality of full-text articles was evaluated by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards(CHEERS) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases International Osteoporosis Foundation guideline(ESCEO-IOF).

RESULTS

In total, 21 full-text articles were eligible for inclusion. Denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporosis was not dominant compared to zoledronate and teriparatide. However, denosumab was dominant compared with strontium ranelate, raloxifene, and ibandronate in patients over 65 years. The probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective or dominant were more than 85% compared with no treatment and risedronate in patients aged over 70 years. Compared to alendronate, the highest rate of denosumab dominance occurred in patients aged 65 to 75 years, at about 65%. Most of the articles had higher CHEERS scores than ESCEO-IOF scores (converted into percentages).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis was influenced by multiple factors. Generally, denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the transparency, generalization, and quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention for Medicare beneficiaries

Background

Secondary fracture prevention intervention such as fracture liaison services are effective for increasing osteoporosis treatment rates, but are not currently widely used in the United States. We evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention after osteoporotic fracture for Medicare beneficiaries.

Methods

An individual‐level state‐transition microsimulation model was developed to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention compared with usual care for U.S. Medicare patients aged 65 and older who experience a new osteoporotic fracture. Patients who initiated pharmacotherapy and remained adherent were assumed to be treated for 5 years. Outcome measures included subsequent fractures, average lifetime costs, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios in 2020 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. The model time horizon was lifetime, and analysis perspective was payer.

Results

Base‐case analysis results showed that the secondary fracture prevention intervention strategy was both more effective and less expensive than usual care—thus, it was cost‐saving. Model findings indicated that the intervention would reduce the number of expected fractures by approximately 5% over a 5‐year period, preventing approximately 30,000 fractures for 1 million patients. Secondary fracture prevention intervention resulted in an average cost savings of $418 and an increase in QALYs of 0.0299 per patient over the lifetime; for 1 million patients who receive the intervention instead of usual care, expected cost savings for Medicare would be $418 million dollars. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported base‐case findings of cost savings.

Conclusion

Secondary fracture prevention intervention for Medicare beneficiaries after a new osteoporotic fracture is very likely to both improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs compared with usual care. Expansion of its use for this population is strongly recommended.

Patients 80 + have similar medication initiation rates to those aged 50-79 in Ontario FLS

Among individuals presenting to an Ontario FLS, we compared bone active medication initiation rates of patients 80 years and older with those 50-79 years old. After accounting for fracture risk status, there was no statistically significant difference in medication initiation rates between the two age groups INTRODUCTION: A Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) offers post-fracture services to individuals over the age of 50 years and could potentially address age inequities in pharmacotherapy often observed for older adults. Among individuals presenting to an Ontario FLS and classified as being at high risk for future fracture, our objective was to compare bone active medication initiation rates of patients 80 years and older with those 50-79 years old.

METHODS

In 39 FLS fracture clinics across Ontario, Canada, fracture prevention coordinators identified, assessed, and facilitated the referral of eligible patients for bone densitometry, fracture risk assessment, and implementation of pharmacotherapy in patients classified as high risk for future fracture. Variables assessed at baseline included age, sex, marital status, living location, fracture location, history of previous fracture, parent's history of hip fracture, history of falls, and fracture risk status. At 6 months, bone active medication initiation was assessed in patients classified as high risk for future fracture. The Chi-square test of independence was used to compare medication initiation rates between patients 80 + and those 50-79 years old.

RESULTS

Our sample size consisted of 808 patients aged 50-79 years and 346 aged 80 + years. After accounting for fracture risk status, there was no statistically significant difference in medication initiation rates of patients 50-79 and 80 + years old (76.9% versus 73.7%, p = 0.251).

CONCLUSION

A systematic approach to identifying patients at high risk for future fracture and tailoring treatment recommendations to these patients appeared to eliminate differences in treatment initiation rates based on older age.

Systematic evidence of health economic evaluation of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis: A quality appraisal

This paper systematically and critically reviewed all published economic evaluations of drugs for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A systematic search was conducted using relevant databases for economic evaluations to include all relevant English articles published between January 2008 to January 2020. After extracting the key study characteristics, methods and outcomes, we evaluated each article using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) instruments. A total of 49 studies met the inclusion criteria. Majority of studies were funded by the industry and reported favorable cost-effectiveness. Based on the QHES total scores, studies (n = 35) were found to be industry-funded with higher QHES mean 82.44 ± 8.69 as compared with nonindustry funding studies (n = 11) with mean 72.22 ± 17.67. The overall mean QHES scores were found to be higher 79.06 ± 11.84, representing high quality (75–100) compared to CHEERS scores (%) 75.03 ± 11.21. The statistical pairwise comparison between CHEERS mean (75.03 ± 11.21) and QHES mean (79.06 ± 11.84) were not statistically significant (P = 0.10) whereas, QHES score showed higher means as compared to CHEERS. This study suggests the overall quality of the published literatures was relatively few high-quality health economic evaluation demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis, and the majority of the literature highlights that methodological shortcoming.

Forecasting Pharmaceutical Prices for Economic Evaluations When There Is No Market: A Review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluation helps policy makers and healthcare payers make decisions on drug listing, coverage, and reimbursement. When economic evaluations are conducted before a product launch, the prices of the pharmaceuticals have to be forecast.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the methods of establishing proxy prices and their accuracies compared with actual market prices after the product launch.

METHODS

We searched the literature for evaluations for drugs that were licensed in the US between 2010 and 2015. We reviewed the studies for the forecasting strategies used, and then estimated the difference between actual 2016 post-launch prices and what the proxy prices would be if the forecast was carried out in the US in 2016.

RESULTS

We identified six such studies, with seven drugs. Four studies used substitute drugs as proxies for the study drug, and three used other methods. The range of the values of actual minus proxy price varied considerably, and no trend was observed.

CONCLUSION

Forecasting drug prices is as precarious as forecasting in other areas of the economy. We urge caution in reviewing and accepting a cost-effectiveness ratio that is based on forecast prices.

A comprehensive review of denosumab for bone metastasis in patients with solid tumors

BACKGROUND

Denosumab is fully human monoclonal antibody that specifically binds and inactivates receptor activator of NF-kB ligand (RANKL), an important ligand that regulates bone remodeling. In this review, we aimed to show the clinical data about denosumab treatment and discuss its advantages for the management of patients with solid tumors and bone metastasis.

SCOPE

Denosumab showed positive results in clinical studies of solid tumors with bone metastasis. PubMed database and ASCO Symposium Meeting abstracts were searched until August 2015 by using the terms 'denosumab', 'RANKL inhibitor' and 'bone metastasis'. The last search was on 21 August 2015. All resulting studies were retrieved and were also checked for related publications. Clinical trials in this review fulfilled the following criterion: inclusion of sufficient data to allow estimation of the efficacy and safety of denosumab.

FINDINGS

The effects of denosumab on skeletal-related events (SREs) were investigated in three large randomized trials: one in patients with breast cancer, one in patients with prostate cancer, and one in patients with multiple myeloma or solid tumors other than breast or prostate cancer. In the breast cancer and prostate cancer studies denosumab was non-inferior and also superior to zoledronic acid in terms of the primary outcome time to first on-study SRE. In the third study denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid but was not superior to zoledronic acid in solid tumors excluding breast and prostate cancer with bone metastases. In the three studies median overall survival and disease progression rates were similar between zoledronic acid and denosumab. Denosumab has also been studied in bone loss associated with hormonal therapy in both breast and prostate cancer. Adjuvant denosumab significantly reduced the risk of clinical fracture risk by 50% in breast cancer patients and by 62% in non-metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapy. In addition, biochemical markers of bone turnover and fractures were significantly reduced in patients under denosumab treatment.

CONCLUSION

The promising outcomes in the initial trials with denosumab have shown clinical activity and a favorable safety profile in patients with solid tumors and bone metastasis. Denosumab significantly reduced treatment-related osteoporosis associated with breast and prostate cancer and was superior to zoledronic acid in prevention or delaying of SRE.

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Given the limited availability of healthcare resources and the recent introduction of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, the interest in the cost effectiveness of drugs in postmenopausal osteoporosis remains and even increases.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify all recent economic evaluations on drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis, to critically appraise the reporting quality, and to summarize the results.

METHODS

A literature search using Medline, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry was undertaken to identify original articles published between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013. Studies that assessed cost effectiveness of drugs in postmenopausal osteoporosis were included. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of these articles.

RESULTS

Of 1,794 articles identified, 39 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They were conducted in 14 different countries and nine active interventions were assessed. When compared with no treatment, active osteoporotic drugs were generally cost effective in postmenopausal women aged over 60-65 years with low bone mass, especially those with prior vertebral fractures. Key drivers of cost effectiveness included individual fracture risk, medication adherence, selected comparators and country-specific analyses. Quality of reporting varied between studies with an average score of 17.9 out of 24 (range 7-21.5).

CONCLUSION

This review found a substantial number of published cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs in osteoporosis in the last 6 years. Results and critical appraisal of these articles can help decision makers when prioritizing health interventions and can inform the development of future economic evaluations.

Antiresorptive drugs beyond bisphosphonates and selective oestrogen receptor modulators for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporotic fractures are a major cause of morbidity in the elderly population. Since postmenopausal osteoporosis is related to an increase in osteoclastic activity at the time of menopause, inhibitors of bone resorption have genuinely been considered an adequate strategy for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates and selective oestrogen receptor modulators are widely prescribed to treat osteoporosis. However, other antiresorptive drugs have been developed for the management of osteoporosis, with the objective of providing a substantial reduction in osteoporotic fractures at all skeletal sites, combined with an acceptable long-term skeletal and systemic safety profile. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody to receptor activator for nuclear factor kappa B ligand, has shown efficacy against vertebral, nonvertebral and hip fractures. Its administration every 6 months as a subcutaneous formulation might significantly influence compliance and persistence to therapy. Additional results regarding long-term skeletal safety (i.e. osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical diaphyseal femoral fracture) are needed. Odanacatib, a selective cathepsin K inhibitor, is a promising new approach to the inhibition of osteoclastic resorption, with the potential to uncouple bone formation from bone resorption. Results regarding its anti-fracture efficacy are expected in the coming months.

US-Based Drug Cost Parameter Estimation for Economic Evaluations

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, more than 10% of national health expenditures are for prescription drugs. Assessing drug costs in US economic evaluation studies is not consistent, as the true acquisition cost of a drug is not known by decision modelers. Current US practice focuses on identifying one reasonable drug cost and imposing some distributional assumption to assess uncertainty.

METHODS

We propose a set of Rules based on current pharmacy practice that account for the heterogeneity of drug product costs. The set of products derived from our Rules, and their associated costs, form an empirical distribution that can be used for more realistic sensitivity analyses and create transparency in drug cost parameter computation. The Rules specify an algorithmic process to select clinically equivalent drug products that reduce pill burden, use an appropriate package size, and assume uniform weighting of substitutable products. Three diverse examples show derived empirical distributions and are compared with previously reported cost estimates.

RESULTS

The shapes of the empirical distributions among the 3 drugs differ dramatically, including multiple modes and different variation. Previously published estimates differed from the means of the empirical distributions. Published ranges for sensitivity analyses did not cover the ranges of the empirical distributions. In one example using lisinopril, the empirical mean cost of substitutable products was $444 (range = $23-$953) as compared with a published estimate of $305 (range = $51-$523).

CONCLUSIONS

Our Rules create a simple and transparent approach to creating cost estimates of drug products and assessing their variability. The approach is easily modified to include a subset of, or different weighting for, substitutable products. The derived empirical distribution is easily incorporated into 1-way or probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

The application of health technology assessment in osteoporosis

Because of the high costs to patients, health care payers and to society, it is important to allocate healthcare resources appropriately and efficiently. Health technology assessment aims to evaluate the clinical, economic, social, and ethical implications of a disease, and its prevention and treatment to guide national healthcare policies (e.g. clinical and research investment, reimbursement decisions). In this chapter, we review the various aspects of health technology assessment in osteoporosis, including epidemiology and burden of disease, and assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of osteoporosis and the prevention of fracture. Health technology assessment indicates an immense burden of osteoporotic fractures for patients and society that is set to increase as the number of elderly people increases. Prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have been shown to be a cost-effective way of allocating scarce healthcare resources.

A review of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is an age-related systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility. Bone remodeling involves two types of cells: osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) is a key regulator of the formation and function of bone-resorbing osteoclasts, and its cell surface receptor, receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (RANK), is expressed by both osteoclast precursors and mature osteoclasts. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal anti-RANKL antibody that inhibits the binding of RANKL to RANK, thereby decreasing osteoclastogenesis and bone-resorbing activity of mature osteoclasts. Although there are many medications available for the treatment of osteoporosis, inhibition of RANKL by denosumab has been shown to significantly affect bone metabolism. Denosumab appears to be a promising, highly effective, and safe parenteral therapy with good adherence for osteoporosis. Moreover, denosumab may be cost-effective therapy compared with existing alternatives. Therefore, in this review, we focus on studies of denosumab and the risks and benefits identified for this type of treatment for osteoporosis.

A systematic review of models used in cost-effectiveness analyses of preventing osteoporotic fractures

This review was aimed at the evolution of health economic models used in evaluations of clinical approaches aimed at preventing osteoporotic fractures. Models have improved, with medical continuance becoming increasingly recognized as a contributor to health and economic outcomes, as well as advancements in epidemiological data. Model-based health economic evaluation studies are increasingly used to investigate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporotic fracture preventions and treatments. The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the evolution of health economic models used in the evaluation of osteoporotic fracture preventions. Electronic searches within MEDLINE and EMBASE were carried out using a predefined search strategy. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select relevant studies. References listed of included studies were searched to identify any potential study that was not captured in our electronic search. Data on country, interventions, type of fracture prevention, evaluation perspective, type of model, time horizon, fracture sites, expressed costs, types of costs included, and effectiveness measurement were extracted. Seventy-four models were described in 104 publications, of which 69% were European. Earlier models focused mainly on hip, vertebral, and wrist fracture, but later models included multiple fracture sites (humerus, pelvis, tibia, and other fractures). Modeling techniques have evolved from simple decision trees, through deterministic Markov processes to individual patient simulation models accounting for uncertainty in multiple parameters. Treatment continuance has been increasingly taken into account in the models in the last decade. Models have evolved in their complexity and emphasis, with medical continuance becoming increasingly recognized as a contributor to health and economic outcomes. This evolution may be driven in part by the desire to capture all the important differentiating characteristics of medications under scrutiny, as well as the advancement in epidemiological data relevant to osteoporosis fractures.

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

BACKGROUND

In the US, 26 % of women aged ≥65 years, and over 50 % of women aged ≥85 years are affected with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). Each year, the total direct health care costs are estimated to be $US12-18 billion.

OBJECTIVE

The cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a US third-party payer perspective was evaluated.

METHODS

A lifetime cohort Markov model was developed with seven health states: 'well', hip fracture, vertebral fracture, 'other' osteoporotic fracture, post-hip fracture, post-vertebral fracture, and dead. During each cycle, patients could have a fracture, remain healthy, remain in a post-fracture state or die. Relative fracture risk reductions, background fracture risks, mortality rates, treatment-specific persistence rate, utilities, and medical and drug costs were derived using published sources. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for generic alendronate, denosumab, branded risedronate, and branded ibandronate in the overall PMO population and high-risk subgroups: (a) ≥2 of the following risks: >70 years of age, bone mineral density (BMD) T score less than or equal to -3.0, and prevalent vertebral fracture; and (b) ≥75 years of age. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3 % annually, and all costs were inflated to 2012 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying parameters e.g., efficacies of interventions, costs, utilities, and the medication persistence ratio.

RESULTS

In the overall PMO population, total lifetime costs for alendronate, denosumab, risedronate, and ibandronate were $US64,400, $US67,400, $US67,600 and $US69,200, respectively. Total QALYs were 8.2804, 8.3155, 8.2735 and 8.2691, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for denosumab versus generic alendronate was $US85,100/QALY. Risedronate and ibandronate were dominated by denosumab. In the high-risk subgroup (a), total costs for alendronate, denosumab, risedronate and ibandronate were $US70,400, $US70,800, $US74,000 and $US76,900, respectively. Total QALYs were 7.2006, 7.2497, 7.1969 and 7.1841, respectively. Denosumab had an ICER of $US7,900/QALY versus generic alendronate and dominated all other strategies. Denosumab dominated all strategies in women aged ≥75 years. Base-case results between denosumab and generic alendronate were most sensitive to the relative risk of hip fracture for both drugs and the cost of denosumab.

CONCLUSION

In each PMO population examined, denosumab represented good value for money compared with branded bisphosphonates. Furthermore, denosumab was either cost effective or dominant compared with generic alendronate in the high-risk subgroups.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women

Denosumab is a novel biological agent for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with increased risk of fractures. With limited healthcare resources, economic evaluations are increasingly being used by decision-makers to optimize healthcare resource allocation. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab has been evaluated in various studies, and a systematic literature study was conducted up to April 2012 to identify all published research articles and research abstracts presented at various congresses. This article provides a systematic review of four articles and eight abstracts reporting on the cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis. In most economic evaluations, denosumab has been considered as a cost-effective treatment compared with first-line and second-line options (including generic alendronate) in the treatment of women with high risk of fractures.

Cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the treatment of male osteoporosis

The results of this study suggest that, under the assumption of same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women, strontium ranelate could be considered a cost-effective strategy compared with no treatment for the treatment of osteoporotic men from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective.

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporotic men.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adapted to estimate the cost (<euro>2,010) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of strontium ranelate compared with no treatment. Similar efficacy data on lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) between men with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture (MALEO Trial) and postmenopausal osteoporotic women (pivotal SOTI, TROPOS trials) supports the assumption, in the base-case analysis, of the same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women. Analyses were conducted, from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, in the population from the MALEO Trial who is a men population with a mean age of 73 years, and BMD T-score ≤-2.5 or prevalent vertebral fracture (PVF).

RESULTS

In the MALEO population, strontium ranelate compared with no treatment was estimated at <euro>49,798 and <euro>25,584 per QALY gained using efficacy data from the intent-to-treat analysis and the per-protocol analysis including only adherent patients, respectively. In men with a BMD T-score ≤-2.5 or with PVF, the cost per QALY gained of strontium ranelate fall below thresholds of <euro>45,000 and <euro>25,000 per QALY gained based on efficacy data from the entire population of the clinical trial and from the per-protocol analyses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that, under the assumption of same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women, strontium ranelate could be considered cost-effective compared with no treatment for male osteoporosis.

Health technology assessment in osteoporosis

We review the various aspects of health technology assessment in osteoporosis, including epidemiology and burden of disease, and assessment of the cost-effectiveness of recent advances in the treatment of osteoporosis and the prevention of fracture, in the context of the allocation of health-care resources by decision makers in osteoporosis. This article was prepared on the basis of a symposium held by the Belgian Bone Club and the discussions surrounding that meeting and is based on a review and critical appraisal of the literature. Epidemiological studies confirm the immense burden of osteoporotic fractures for patients and society, with lifetime risks of any fracture of the hip, spine, and forearm of around 40 % for women and 13 % for men. The economic impact is also large; for example, Europe's six largest countries spent €31 billion on osteoporotic fractures in 2010. Moreover, the burden is expected to increase in the future with demographic changes and increasing life expectancy. Recent advances in the management of osteoporosis include novel treatments, better fracture-risk assessment notably via fracture risk algorithms, and improved adherence to medication. Economic evaluation can inform decision makers in health care on the cost-effectiveness of the various interventions. Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that the recent advances in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis may constitute an efficient basis for the allocation of scarce health-care resources. In summary, health technology assessment is increasingly used in the field of osteoporosis and could be very useful to help decision makers efficiently allocate health-care resources.

Cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene compared with raloxifene in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women

Bazedoxifene is a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. In addition to the therapeutic value of a new agent, evaluation of the cost-effectiveness compared with relevant alternative treatment(s) is an important consideration to facilitate healthcare decision making. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene compared with raloxifene for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost-effectiveness of treatment for 3 years with bazedoxifene was compared with raloxifene using an updated version of a previously validated Markov microsimulation model. Analyses were conducted from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective and, the base-case population was women (aged 70 years) with bone mineral density T-score ≤ -2.5. The effects of bazedoxifene and raloxifene on fracture risk were derived from the 3-year results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled study, including postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost-effectiveness analysis based on efficacy data from the overall clinical trial indicated that bazedoxifene and raloxifene were equally cost-effective. When the results were examined based on the subgroup analysis of women at higher risk of fractures, bazedoxifene was dominant (lower cost for higher effectiveness) compared with raloxifene in most of the simulations. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results, which were largely independent of starting age of treatment, fracture risk, cost, and disutility. In addition, when the cost of raloxifene was reduced by one-half or when incorporating the raloxifene effects on reducing breast cancer, bazedoxifene remained cost-effective, at a threshold of €35,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained, in 85% and 68% of the simulations, respectively. Under the assumption of improved antifracture efficacy of bazedoxifene over raloxifene in women with high risk of fractures, this study suggests that bazedoxifene can be considered cost-effective, and even dominant, when compared with raloxifene in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

Denosumab, a RANK ligand inhibitor, for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence for use of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

DATA SOURCES

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted during January 2012, using the terms denosumab and osteoporosis, with index dates of 2000 to 2011. Additional information was gathered from Amgen and references cited in articles retrieved.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

English-language articles including clinical trials involving denosumab for treatment of osteoporosis and review articles were reviewed. Articles using denosumab in males or as treatment for conditions other than osteoporosis or osteopenia were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Many clinical trials have supported the safety and efficacy of denosumab in postmenopausal women with bone loss. It has been shown to improve bone mineral density, decrease markers of bone turnover, and prevent new vertebral fractures. It shows improvement over placebo in studies and has at least similar efficacy to alendronate in measurements of bone mineral density, with less risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical fracture, but with an increased risk of infections and neoplasms. European cost-effectiveness studies have also demonstrated that denosumab is a cost-effective choice compared to risedronate and no treatment for fracture prevention for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab has demonstrated efficacy and safety as a first-line treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis in multiple clinical trials over at least 6 years. It may be most cost-effective for women who are unable or refuse to take bisphosphonate drugs.

The clinical and economic burden of poor adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications in Ireland

OBJECTIVES

Medication nonadherence is common for osteoporosis, but its consequences have not been well described. This study aimed to quantify the clinical and economic impacts of poor adherence and to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of improving patient adherence by using hypothetical behavioral interventions.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adapted to the Irish setting to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes (fractures and quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) for three adherence scenarios: no treatment, real-world adherence, and full adherence over 3 years. The real-world scenario employed adherence and persistence data from the Irish Health Services Executive-Primary Care Reimbursement Services pharmacy claims database. We also investigated the cost-effectiveness of hypothetical behavioral interventions to improve medication adherence (according to their cost and effect on adherence).

RESULTS

The number of fractures prevented and the QALY gain obtained at real-world adherence levels represented only 57% and 56% of those expected with full adherence, respectively. The costs per QALY gained of real-world adherence and of full adherence compared with no treatment were estimated at € 11,834 and € 6,341, respectively. An intervention to improve adherence by 25% would result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of € 11,511 per QALY and € 54,182 per QALY, compared with real-world adherence, if the intervention cost an additional € 50 and € 100 per year, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Poor adherence with osteoporosis medications results in around a 50% reduction in the potential benefits observed in clinical trials and a doubling of the cost per QALY gained from these medications. Depending on their costs and outcomes, programs to improve adherence have the potential to be an efficient use of resources.

Long-term treatment of osteoporosis: safety and efficacy appraisal of denosumab

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL), a member of the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily essential for osteoclastogenesis. Denosumab treatment is associated with a rapid, sustained, and reversible reduction in bone turnover markers, a continuous marked increase in bone mineral density at all sites, and a marked decrease in the risk of vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Therefore, it could be considered as an effective alternative to previous bisphosphonate treatment as well as first-line treatment of severe osteoporosis. Cost-effectiveness studies support this suggestion. In addition, denosumab seems to be the safest treatment option in patients with impaired renal function. Denosumab is characterized by reversibility of its effect after treatment discontinuation, in contrast with bisphosphonates. Large-scale clinical trials, including the extension of FREEDOM trial for up to 5 years, are reassuring for its safety. However, given its brief post-market period, vigilance regarding adverse events related to putative RANKL inhibition in tissues other than bone, as well as those related to bone turnover oversuppression, is advised.

Targeted approaches in the treatment of osteoporosis: differential mechanism of action of denosumab and clinical utility

Denosumab is a breakthrough biological drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for the treatment of osteoporosis in 2010. It is a fully human monoclonal antireceptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand antibody, which inhibits the activity of osteoclasts, resulting in an antiresorptive effect with a significant increase in bone mineral density. The FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis every 6 Months) trial, comparing denosumab with no treatment in 7868 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, showed an important reduction of fracture risk at hip, vertebral, and nonvertebral sites in the treated group, while no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events was detected between denosumab and placebo groups. The specific action of denosumab directed against a key regulator of osteoclasts makes it a valuable tool in preventing the occurrence of skeletal events caused by bone destruction in patients with advanced malignancies. The drug was approved for postmenopausal osteoporosis in women at increased risk of fracture and for the treatment of bone loss associated with androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of the Concord Minimal Trauma Fracture Liaison service, a prospective, controlled fracture prevention study

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service prospectively designed to have a parallel control group treated by standard care. The clinical effectiveness of this service was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio versus standard care of Australian dollars (AUD) 17,291 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporotic fractures are a major burden for national health services. The risk of re-fracture following an osteoporotic fracture is particularly high. In a study unique in prospectively having a control group treated by standard care, we recently demonstrated that a Minimal Trauma Fracture Liaison (MTFL) service significantly reduces the risk of re-fracture by 80%. Since the service involves greater use of resources, we have now evaluated whether it is cost-effective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed that incorporated fracture probabilities and resource utilization data (expressed in AUD) obtained directly from the 4-year MTFL service clinical study. Resource utilization, local cost and mortality data and fracture-related health utility data were used to calculate QALYs with the MTFL service and standard care. Main outcome measures were: additional costs of the MTFL service over standard care, the financial savings achieved through reduced fractures and changes in QALYs associated with reduced fractures calculated over a 10-year simulation period. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 5% annually. Sensitivity analyses quantified the effects of different assumptions of effectiveness and resource utilization associated with the MTFL service.

RESULTS

The MTFL service improved QALYs by 0.089 years and led to increased costs of AUD 1,486 per patient versus standard care over the 10-year simulation period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio versus standard care was AUD 17,291 per QALY gained. Results were robust under all plausible assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The MTFL service is a cost-effective intervention to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures.

Cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Denosumab has recently been shown to be well tolerated, to increase bone mineral density (BMD) and to significantly reduce the risk of hip, vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in the FREEDOM (Fracture REduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis every 6 Months) trial. It is becoming increasingly important to evaluate not only the therapeutic value of a new drug but also the cost effectiveness compared with the most relevant treatment alternatives.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates (branded and generic drugs) in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women in Belgium.

METHODS

Cost effectiveness of 3 years of treatment with denosumab was compared with branded risedronate and branded and generic alendronate using an updated version of a previously validated Markov microsimulation model. The model was populated with relevant cost, adherence and epidemiological data for Belgium from a payer perspective and the results were presented as costs per QALY gained (&U20AC;, year 2009 values). Analyses were performed in populations (aged ≥60 years) in which osteoporosis medications are currently reimbursed in many European countries, i.e. those with BMD T-score of -2.5 or less or prevalent vertebral fracture. Patients receiving denosumab were assumed to have a 46% lower risk of discontinuation than those receiving oral bisphosphonates, and the effect of denosumab after treatment cessation was assumed to decline linearly to zero over a maximum of 1 year.

RESULTS

Denosumab was cost effective compared with all other therapies, assuming a willingness to pay of &U20AC;40 000 per QALY gained. In particular, denosumab was found to be cost effective compared with branded alendronate and risedronate at a threshold value of &U20AC;30 000 per QALY and denosumab was dominant (i.e. lower cost and greater effectiveness) compared with risedronate from the age of 70 years in women with a T-score of -2.5 or less and no prior fractures. The cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with generic alendronate was estimated at &U20AC;38 514, &U20AC;22 220 and &U20AC;27 862 per QALY for women aged 60, 70 and 80 years, respectively, with T-scores of -2.5 or less. The equivalent values were &U20AC;37 167, &U20AC;19 718 and &U20AC;19 638 per QALY for women with prevalent vertebral fractures.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests, on the basis of currently available data, that denosumab is a cost-effective strategy compared with oral bisphosphonates (including generic alendronate) for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women, aged ≥60 years in Belgium. Denosumab therefore appears to have the potential to become a first-line treatment for post-menopausal women with osteoporosis. However, further studies would be required to evaluate the long-term safety and adherence of denosumab in real-world clinical practice as well as head-to-head effectiveness compared with oral bisphosphonates.

Denosumab: a review of its use in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Denosumab (Prolia®) is a human recombinant monoclonal antibody that is approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women at high or increased risk of fracture in the US, the EU and several other countries. Denosumab has a novel mechanism of action; it binds to receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand and inhibits bone resorption by inhibiting osteoclast formation, function and survival. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral and hip fractures compared with placebo over 3 years in the large, phase III FREEDOM study. In postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD) or osteoporosis, treatment with denosumab increased BMD and decreased markers of bone turnover more than alendronate in those who were essentially treatment-naive in the 1-year DECIDE study and also in the 1-year STAND study, in which women were switched from alendronate to denosumab or continued alendronate treatment. Denosumab was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, although long-term effects of very low bone turnover remain to be established. Denosumab is administered once every 6 months via subcutaneous injection, which may be a preferred method of administration and may improve adherence to treatment compared with other osteoporosis treatments. Denosumab is a valuable new option for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women at increased or high risk of fractures, and may be useful as a first-line treatment in women at increased risk of fractures who are unable to take other osteoporosis treatments.

The role and efficacy of denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis: an update

INTRODUCTION

Bone strength determinants such as bone mineral density and bone quality parameters are determined by life-long remodeling of skeletal tissue. Denosumab is a fully human mAb receptor activator of NF-κB ligand, which selectively inhibits osteoclastogenesis, the end product of a cascade interaction among numerous systemic and local factors and osteoblasts. It has been approved for clinical use by the FDA in the US and by the European Medicines Agency in Europe since June 2010 (trade name Prolia(™), Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA).

AREAS COVERED

This review establishes the concerns and provides insights in issues concerning the cost-effectiveness and safety profile of this new pharmaceutical agent. There is an effort to clarify the special characteristics and the anti-catabolic role of denosumab in the bone tissue homeostasis and more specifically its potential clinical applications and clinical results in the field of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

EXPERT OPINION

Administrated as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months, denosumab has been shown to decrease bone turnover and increase bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis and reduce vertebral, hip and nonvertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The rapid, sustained and reversible effect in suppressing osteoclastic bone resorption, the return of responsiveness on rechallenge, its good tolerability and ease of administration are features that distinguish it from other antiresorptive therapies.

Clinical use of denosumab for the treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody with high affinity and specificity for human receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL), the principal regulator of osteoclastic bone resorption. By binding to RANKL, denosumab prevents it from binding to its receptor on the cell surface of pre-osteoclasts and mature osteoclasts, thereby reducing the formation, activity, and survival of osteoclasts and inhibiting osteoclastic bone resorption. In a large, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab 60 mg administered subcutaneously every 6 months reduced levels of bone turnover markers, increased bone mineral density, and reduced the risk of vertebral fractures, hip fractures, and non-vertebral fractures. There was no significant difference between denosumab and placebo in the overall risk of adverse events or serious adverse events. Denosumab was associated with a significant increase in the risk of eczema and cellulitis, and a significant decrease in the risk of falling and concussions. Denosumab recently received regulatory approval for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, with no dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment. Denosumab is a new therapeutic option to reduce fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, especially for those with impaired renal function or with intolerance or poor response to oral therapy.

Comparative cost assessment of the Kato-Katz and FLOTAC techniques for soil-transmitted helminth diagnosis in epidemiological surveys

BACKGROUND

The Kato-Katz technique is widely used for the diagnosis of soil-transmitted helminthiasis in epidemiological surveys and is believed to be an inexpensive method. The FLOTAC technique shows a higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of light-intensity soil-transmitted helminth infections but is reported to be more complex and expensive. We assessed the costs related to the collection, processing and microscopic examination of stool samples using the Kato-Katz and FLOTAC techniques in an epidemiological survey carried out in Zanzibar, Tanzania.

METHODS

We measured the time for the collection of a single stool specimen in the field, transfer to a laboratory, preparation and microscopic examination using standard protocols for the Kato-Katz and FLOTAC techniques. Salaries of health workers, life expectancy and asset costs of materials, and infrastructure costs were determined. The average cost for a single or duplicate Kato-Katz thick smears and the FLOTAC dual or double technique were calculated.

RESULTS

The average time needed to collect a stool specimen and perform a single or duplicate Kato-Katz thick smears or the FLOTAC dual or double technique was 20 min and 34 sec (20:34 min), 27:21 min, 28:14 min and 36:44 min, respectively. The total costs for a single and duplicate Kato-Katz thick smears were US$ 1.73 and US$ 2.06, respectively, and for the FLOTAC double and dual technique US$ 2.35 and US$ 2.83, respectively. Salaries impacted most on the total costs of either method.

CONCLUSIONS

The time and cost for soil-transmitted helminth diagnosis using either the Kato-Katz or FLOTAC method in epidemiological surveys are considerable. Our results can help to guide healthcare decision makers and scientists in budget planning and funding for epidemiological surveys, anthelminthic drug efficacy trials and monitoring of control interventions.