Cost-effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Interventions to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia

A randomized controlled trial of the effect of raloxifene plus cholecalciferol versus cholecalciferol alone on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteopenia

Raloxifene increases lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and lowers vertebral fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, few prospective clinical trials have studied its efficacy in postmenopausal women with osteopenia. This study investigated the efficacy of raloxifene in postmenopausal women with osteopenia. An investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, prospective, single-center trial was conducted in 112 postmenopausal women with osteopenia. Osteopenia was defined based on the lowest BMD T-score in the lumbar spine, femoral neck, or total hip (-2.5 < lowest T-score < -1.0). Participants were randomly assigned to receive raloxifene 60 mg/day plus cholecalciferol 800 IU/day (RalD) or cholecalciferol 800 IU/day (VitD) for 48 wk. At baseline, mean age (63.1 ± 6.8 yr) did not differ between the two groups. However, in the RalD group, mean body mass index (BMI) and baseline T-score were lower, while 25-hydroxyvitamin D level was higher. At 48 wk, the RalD group showed a greater increase in lumbar spine BMD (RalD vs. VitD; 2.6% vs. -0.6%, P =.005) and attenuated the total hip BMD loss (-0.3% vs. -2.9%, P = .003). The effect of raloxifene on the lumbar spine remained significant after adjustment for age, BMI, baseline BMD T-score, and other covariates (adjusted β: +3.05 vs. VitD, P =.015). In subgroup analysis, the difference in lumbar spine BMD between the RalD and VitD groups was robust in those with severe osteopenia group (lowest T-score ≤ -2.0). Raloxifene plus cholecalciferol significantly improved lumbar spine BMD and attenuated total hip BMD loss compared with cholecalciferol alone, with a more robust effect in severe osteopenia. Clinical trial registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05386784).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ultra-Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Hormone Therapy Alone or Combined Treatment for Low-Risk ER-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer in Women Aged 65 Years and Older

PURPOSE

The optimal management of early-stage, low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer in older women remains controversial. Recent trials have shown that 5-fraction ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (U-WBI) has similar outcomes to longer courses, reducing the cost and inconvenience of treatment. We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare U-WBI to hormone therapy alone or their combination.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We simulated 3 different treatment approaches for women age 65 years or older with pT1-2N0 ER-positive invasive ductal carcinoma treated with lumpectomy with negative margins using a Markov microsimulation model. The strategies were U-WBI performed with a 3-dimensional conformal technique over 5 fractions without a boost ("radiation therapy [RT] alone"), adjuvant hormone therapy (anastrozole for 5 years) without RT ("aromatase-inhibitor [AI] alone"), or the combination of the 2. The combination strategy was calibrated to match trial results, and the relative effectiveness of the RT alone and AI alone strategies were inferred from previous randomized trials. The primary endpoint was the cost-effectiveness of the 3 strategies over a lifetime horizon as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a value of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year deemed "cost-effective."

RESULTS

The model results compared with the prespecified target outcomes. On average, RT alone was the least expensive strategy ($14,775), with AI alone slightly more ($14,998), and combination therapy the costliest ($19,802). RT alone dominated AI alone (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] -$5089). Combination therapy, compared with RT alone, was slightly more expensive than our definition of cost-effective (ICER $113,468) but was cost-effective compared with AI alone (ICER $54,451). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated RT alone to be cost-effective in 50% of trials, with combination therapy in 36% and AI alone in 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

U-WBI alone appears the more cost-effective de-escalation strategy for these low-risk patients, compared with AI alone. Combining U-WBI and AI appears more costly but may be preferred by some patients.

The Efficacy of Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators Monotherapies in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia

BACKGROUND

The impact of osteopenia as a risk factor for fractures is underrecognized. Moreover, the efficacy of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) in postmenopausal women with osteopenia is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SERMs in postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

METHODS

Thirty-two postmenopausal women with osteopenia were treated with 3 types of SERMs medication: raloxifene (group I, N=15), bazedoxifene (group II, N=8), and raloxifene with cholecalciferol (group III, N=9). Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans before treatment to after 3 years of treatment once a year.

RESULTS

Patients in group I showed significant increases in hip BMD, -1.93 to -1.73 and spine BMD, -1.85 to -1.67. In addition, patients in groups II and III showed significant increases in hip BMD, -1.93 to -1.69 and -2.22 to -1.86, respectively and spine BMD, -2.1 to -1.3 and -2.22 to -1.37, respectively. The BMD increased in the hip and spine by 9.7% and 10.3%, respectively in group I, 38.0% and 12.4%, respectively in group II, and 38.2% and 16.2%, respectively in group III.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that SERMs could improve spine and hip BMD. In conclusion, preemptive treatment using SERMs is necessary for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. None of the patients experienced fractures during the follow-up period.

Cost-effectiveness of antiviral therapy in untreated compensated cirrhosis patient with serum HBV-DNA level < 2000 IU/mL

BACKGROUND

Due to stringent reimbursement criteria, significant numbers of patients with compensated cirrhosis (CC) and low-level viremia [LLV; serum hepatitis B virus (HBV)-DNA levels of 20-2000 IU/mL] remain untreated especially in the East Asian countries, despite potential risk of disease progression. We analyzed cost-effectiveness to assess rationales for antiviral therapy (AVT) for this population.

METHODS

We compared cost and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) in a virtual cohort including 10,000 54-year-old CC-LLV patients receiving AVT (Scenario I) versus no treatment (Scenario II). A Markov model, including seven HBV-related conditions, was used. Values for transition probabilities and costs were mostly obtained from recent real-world South Korean data.

RESULTS

As per a simulation of a base-case analysis, AVT reduced costs by $639 USD and yielded 0.108 QALYs per patient for 5 years among CC-LLV patients compared to no treatment. Thus, AVT is a cost-saving option with lower costs and better effectiveness than no treatment. If 10,000 patients received AVT, 815 incident cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 630 HBV-related deaths could be averted in 5 years compared to no treatment. In case of 10-year observation, AVT was consistently dominant. Even when the transition probabilities from CC-LLV vs. maintained virological response to HCC were same, fluctuation of results also lied within willingness-to-pay in South Korea. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis with the willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of AVT cost-effectiveness was 100%.

CONCLUSION

The extended application of AVT in CC-LLV patients may contribute positively to individual clinical benefits and national healthcare budgets.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of No Adjuvant Therapy Versus Partial Breast Irradiation Alone Versus Combined Treatment for Treatment of Low-Risk DCIS: A Microsimulation

PURPOSE

Adjuvant therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ who undergo partial mastectomy remains controversial, particularly for low-risk patients (60 years or older, estrogen-positive, tumor extent < 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2, and margins ≥ 3 mm). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three strategies: no adjuvant treatment after surgery, a five-fraction course of accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (accelerated partial breast irradiation [APBI]-alone), or APBI plus an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outcomes including local recurrence, distant metastases, and survival as well as toxicity data were modeled by a patient-level Markov microsimulation model, which were validated against trial data. Costs of treatment and possible adverse events were included from the societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on utilities extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

No adjuvant therapy was the least costly approach ($5,744), followed by APBI-alone ($11,070); combined therapy was costliest ($16,052). Adjuvant therapy resulted in slightly higher QALYs (no adjuvant, 11.320; APBI-alone, 11.343; and combination, 11.381). In the base case, no treatment was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $239,109/QALY for APBI-alone and $171,718/QALY for combined therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for combined therapy compared with APBI-alone was $131,949. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that no therapy was cost effective (defined as $100,000/QALY of lower) in 63% of trials, APBI-alone in 19%, and the combination in 18%.

CONCLUSION

No adjuvant therapy represents the most cost-effective approach for postmenopausal women 60 years or older who receive partial mastectomy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Antiviral Therapy for Untreated Minimally Active Chronic Hepatitis B to Prevent Liver Disease Progression

INTRODUCTION

Antiviral therapy (AVT) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) can prevent liver disease progression. Because of its stringent reimbursement criteria, significant numbers of patients with untreated minimally active (UMA)-CHB exist, although they are still subject to disease progression. We thus performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the rationale for AVT for UMA-CHB.

METHODS

We compared cost and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) in virtual UMA-CHB cohorts of 10,000 50-year-olds receiving AVT (scenario 1) vs no treatment (scenario 2) for 10 years. A Markov model, including 7 health states of CHB-related disease progression, was used. Values for transition probabilities and costs were mostly obtained from recent South Korean data.

RESULTS

The simulation of AVT vs no treatment predicted $2,201 incremental costs and 0.175 incremental QALYs per patient for 10 years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $12,607/QALY, suggesting cost-effectiveness of AVT. In sum, if 10,000 patients received AVT, 720 incident hepatocellular carcinoma and 465 CHB-related more deaths could be averted in 10 years relative to no treatment. When the simulated analysis period was extended to 20 years, AVT was also highly cost-effective with an ICER of $2,036/QALY. Although hepatocellular carcinoma-related mortality was a major factor influencing ICER, its fluctuation can be accepted within willingness to pay of $33,000 in South Korea. According to probabilistic sensitivity analysis with the threshold of willingness to pay, the probability of AVT cost-effectiveness was 83.3%.

DISCUSSION

Long-term AVT for patients with UMA-CHB may contribute positively toward individual clinical benefit and national health care budget.

An Updated Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Drugs for Osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles.

RESULTS

The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvement was observed for most studies, which could potentially be explained by the fact that most studies were published prior to the osteoporosis-specific guideline. Greater adherence to guideline recommendations was expected for future studies. The quality of reporting was also suboptimal, especially with regard to treatment side effects, treatment effect after discontinuation, and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review provides an overview of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses. In comparison with a previous review, recent economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs were conducted in more countries and included more active drugs and sequential therapy as interventions/comparators. The updated economic evidence could help decision makers prioritize health interventions and the unmet/unreported quality issues indicated by the osteoporosis-specific guideline could be useful in improving the transparency, quality, and comparability of future economic evaluations in osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endocrine therapy alone versus partial-breast irradiation alone versus combined treatment for low-risk hormone-positive early-stage breast cancer in women aged 70 years or older

PURPOSE

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in women age 70 years or older: an aromatase inhibitor (AI-alone) for 5 years, a 5-fraction course of accelerated partial-breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (APBI-alone), or their combination.

METHODS

We constructed a patient-level Markov microsimulation from the societal perspective. Effectiveness data (local recurrence, distant metastases, survival), and toxicity data were obtained from randomized trials when possible. Costs of side effects were included. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using utilities extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

The strategy of AI-alone ($12,637) was cheaper than both APBI-alone ($13,799) and combination therapy ($18,012) in the base case. All approaches resulted in similar QALY outcomes (AI-alone 7.775; APBI-alone 7.768; combination 7.807). In the base case, AI-alone was the cost-effective strategy and dominated APBI-alone, while combined therapy was not cost-effective when compared to AI-alone ($171,451/QALY) or APBI-alone ($107,932/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, AI-alone was cost-effective at $100,000/QALY in 50% of trials, APBI-alone in 28% and the combination in 22%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that APBI-alone was more effective than AI-alone when AI compliance was lower than 26% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a Markov microsimulation analysis, both AI-alone and APBI-alone are appropriate options for patients 70 years or older with early breast cancer with small cost differences noted. A prospective trial comparing the approaches is warranted.

Estimating the Fiscal Costs of Osteoporosis in Korea Applying a Public Economic Perspective

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis and attributable fractures are disruptive health events that can cause short and long-term cost consequences for families, health service and government. In this fracture-based scenario analysis we evaluate the broader public economic consequences for the Korean government based on fractures that can occur at 3 different ages.

METHODS

We developed a public economic modelling framework based on population averages in Korea for earnings, direct taxes, indirect taxes, disability payments, retirement, pension payments, and osteoporosis health costs. Applying a scenario analysis, we estimated the cumulative average per person fiscal consequences of osteoporotic fractures occurring at different ages 55, 65, and 75 compared to average non-fracture individuals of comparable ages to estimate resulting costs for government in relation to lost tax revenue, disability payments, pension costs, and healthcare costs. All costs are calculated between the ages of 50 to 80 in Korean Won (KRW) and discounted at 0.5%.

RESULTS

From the scenarios explored, fractures occurring at age 55 are most costly for government with increased disability and pension payments of KRW 26,048,400 and KRW 41,094,206 per person, respectively, compared to the non-fracture population. A fracture can result in reduction in lifetime direct and indirect taxes resulting in KRW 53,648,886 lost tax revenue per person for government compared to general population.

CONCLUSIONS

The fiscal consequences of osteoporotic fractures for government vary depending on the age at which they occur. Fiscal benefits for government are greater when fractures are prevented early due to the potential to prevent early retirement and keeping people in the labor force to the degree that is observed in non-fracture population.

Role of Bisphosphonate Therapy in Patients with Osteopenia: A Systemic Review

By contrast to clinical trials exploring osteoporosis, clinical trials specifically designed for the osteopenic population are limited. Thus, less clinical data are available regarding treatment benefits and cost-effectiveness of treating a patient population with a bone mass density in the osteopenic range (T-score between -1 and -2.5). In this article, we aimed to highlight this high-risk population with a low bone mass density (BMD) susceptible to high fracture risk by reviewing different national and international guidelines for treating osteopenia. The cost-effectiveness of the therapy for the above-mentioned patient population is also discussed. By reviewing different clinical trials, we have specifically highlighted the role of bisphosphonate therapy for fracture risk reduction and increment in bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with osteopenia.

Quality-Adjusted Life Years After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Health-Related Quality of Life After 12,782 Joint Replacements

Background

The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is the preferred outcome measurement for cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. QALYs measure patient health-related quality of life with use of a value between 0 and 1. Few studies have provided original data delineating QALYs after hip and knee arthroplasty. In the present study, we evaluated patient utility preoperatively and 2 years after total hip arthroplasty, hip resurfacing, revision hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and revision knee arthroplasty.

Methods

A single-hospital joint registry, which enrolled patients from 2007 to 2011, was retrospectively examined for all patients who underwent primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty and who had preoperative and 2-year postoperative Short Form-36 (SF-36), Short Form-12 (SF-12), or EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) scores available. Patient age, body mass index (BMI), sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were recorded. QALYs were determined from the EQ-5D index and the Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) index.

Results

Five thousand, four hundred and sixty-three patients underwent total hip arthroplasty, with a mean annual increase (and standard deviation) of 0.25 ± 0.2 QALY; 843 patients underwent hip resurfacing, with a mean annual increase of 0.24 ± 0.17 QALY; 5,398 patients underwent primary total knee arthroplasty, with a mean annual increase of 0.17 ± 0.19 QALY; and 240 patients underwent medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, with a mean annual increase of 0.16 ± 0.17 QALY. Aseptic revision arthroplasty (440 hips, 323 knees) was associated with a smaller QALY gain than primary arthroplasty. Patient age, BMI, female sex, ASA category, and higher preoperative health-related quality of life were negative predictors for QALY gain after primary arthroplasty. Forty additional hip procedures and 35 additional knee procedures were also analyzed.

Conclusions

Primary hip and knee arthroplasty, on average, result in substantially increased patient quality of life. Revision hip and knee replacement result in a lower, but still positive, gain in quality of life. However, there is a considerable variation in patient outcomes across all procedures. Our results may be used to improve the certainty of future cost-effectiveness analyses of hip and knee arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.