Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

Aims: Bone complications (also known as skeletal-related events [SREs]) pose significant health and financial burdens on patients with bone metastases. Denosumab demonstrated superiority over zoledronic acid in delaying the time to first SRE. This study examined the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid from both US payer and societal perspectives.Methods: This analysis used a lifetime Markov model and included patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other solid tumors and bone metastases. The societal perspective included direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs associated with denosumab and zoledronic acid; the payer perspective included direct medical costs only. Bone complication rates for each tumor type were estimated from three pivotal phase 3 studies and modified to reflect real-world incidence.Results: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab use resulted in an incremental cost of $9,043, an incremental benefit of 0.128 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), a lifetime cost per QALY of $70,730, and a net monetary benefit (NMB) of $10,135 in favor of denosumab. Direct drug costs for denosumab ($28,352) were higher than zoledronic acid/untreated ($578), but were offset by reduced costs associated with bone complications. From a payer perspective, denosumab use was associated with an incremental cost of $13,396, and an incremental benefit of 0.128 QALYs, for a cost of $104,778 per QALY and an NMB of $5,782 in favor of denosumab.Limitations: Some model inputs had limited information and, given that the results may be sensitive to changes in these inputs, our findings should be interpreted within the context of the data inputs and modeling assumptions used in the analysis.Conclusions: Denosumab is a cost-effective option to prevent bone complications in patients with solid tumors when considering both payer and broader societal perspectives.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in four European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy

Aim: The approved indication for denosumab (120 mg) was expanded in 2018 to include skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for SRE prevention in patients with MM from the national healthcare system perspective in a representative sample of European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy. Methods: The XGEVA global economic model for patients with MM was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab vs ZA over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the denosumab vs ZA randomized, phase 3 study ("20090482") in patients newly-diagnosed with MM, and comprised real-world adjusted SRE rates, serious adverse event (SAE) rates, treatment duration, dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Economic inputs comprised country-specific denosumab and ZA acquisition and administration costs, SRE and SAE management costs, and discount rates. Health utility decrements associated with MM disease progression, SRE and SAE occurrence, and route of administration were included. Results: Estimated ICERs (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) for denosumab vs ZA in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy were €26,294, €17,737, €6,982, and €27,228, respectively. Using 1-3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY as willingness to pay thresholds, denosumab was 69-94%, 84-96%, 79-96%, and 50-92% likely to be cost-effective vs ZA, respectively. Limitations: Economic inputs were derived from various sources, and time to event inputs were extrapolated from 20090482 study data. Conclusions: Denosumab is cost-effective vs ZA for SRE prevention in patients with MM in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy, based on often-adopted World Health Organization thresholds. This conclusion is robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Cost-effectiveness estimates varied across the four countries, reflecting differences in healthcare costs and national economic evaluation guidelines.

Denosumab versus bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bone metastases are highly prevalent in breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers. Their symptoms negatively affect quality of life and functionality and optimal management can mitigate these problems. There are two different targeted agents to treat them: bisphosphonates (pamidronate and zoledronic acid) and the monoclonal antibody denosumab. Estimates of cost-effectiveness are still mixed.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of economic studies that compares these two options.

METHOD

Literature search comprised eight databases and keywords for bone metastases, bisphosphonates, denosumab, and economic studies were used. Data were extracted regarding their methodologic characteristics and cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies were evaluated regarding to its methodological quality.

RESULTS

A total of 263 unique studies were retrieved and six met inclusion criteria. All studies were based on clinical trials and other existing literature data, and they had high methodological quality. Most found unfavorable cost-effectiveness for denosumab compared with zoledronic acid, with adjusted ICERS that ranged from $4638-87,354 per SRE avoided and from US$57,274-4.81 M. per QALY gained, which varied widely according to type of tumor, time horizon, among others. Results were sensitive to drug costs, time to first skeletal-related event (SRE), time horizon, and utility.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab had unfavorable cost-effectiveness compared with zoledronic acid in most of the included studies. New economic studies based on real-world data and longer time horizons comparing these therapeutic options are needed.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America

OBJECTIVE

A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives.

METHODS

The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters.

LIMITATIONS

Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab's efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.

Safety of Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Patients with Bone Metastases: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Bone metastases lead to local bone destruction and skeletal complications. Bisphosphonates, particlulaly zoledronic acid (ZA), play a central role in the treatment of bone metastases. Some studies have shown that denosumab may delay and prevent SREs in metastatic bone disease more effectively than ZA; therefore, we systematically reviewed and assessed the safety of denosumab and ZA.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, Elsevier, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched up to October 2015. 2 independent reviewers extracted data from each eligible study using a standard protocol, and both fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to analyze and evaluate the data extracted from eligible articles.

RESULTS

6 randomized controlled trials enrolling 13,733 patients were included. Occurrences of adverse events were generally similar between the denosumab and ZA groups except anemia and anorexia in patients with bone metastases and back pain and bone pain. However, occurrences of serious adverse events such as hypocalcaemia , renal adverse events , and new primary malignancy were significantly different between the denosumab and ZA groups. Only the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw showed no significant difference between the denosumab and ZA groups in patients with bone metastases.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab was safer in delaying or preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases and prevented pain progression compared to ZA in this meta-analysis.