Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Canada

Cost-effectiveness of Denosumab for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in Malaysia

From the perspective of Malaysian health care providers, denosumab was cost-effective in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, with an optimal outcome starting at age 60 years. Our results provide important insights into the value for money of anti-osteoporotic agents that can serve as a reference for other countries with comparable epidemiological data.

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of denosumab with alendronate and no treatment in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis among the Malaysian population.

METHODS

A well-validated Markov model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab in a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic women between 50 and 80 years old who had no history of fractures. A 10-year time horizon from the perspective of Malaysian health care providers was used in this analysis. The model parameters, including transition probabilities and costs, were based on Malaysian sources. Treatment efficacy data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. The study outcomes were presented as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of the results. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at MYR 21,438 (USD 5175) per QALY.

RESULTS

Denosumab was found to be a cost-effective option for postmenopausal osteoporotic women aged 60 and older. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab versus alendronate ranged from MYR 16,955 (USD 4093) per QALY at age 60 to MYR 4380 (USD 1057) per QALY at age 80. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab improved monotonically with increasing age. Denosumab was 72.8-92.7% likely to be cost-effective at the cost-effectiveness threshold. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were robust across all parameter variations, with the annual cost of denosumab being the most sensitive.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the Malaysian health care provider, denosumab appears to be a cost-effective treatment choice for postmenopausal osteoporotic women over 60 years of age.

Cost-Effectiveness of Denosumab for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in South Korea

Background

Osteoporosis is a progressive skeletal disease associated with an increased risk of bone fracture. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for osteoporotic fracture prevention compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene) in a cohort of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Methods

A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of denosumab versus comparators. The model had a cycle length of 6 months and was run from the age of 68 years to individual patients’ lifetime or the age of 100 years. The health states considered in the model were well, hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, other osteoporotic fracture, post-hip fracture, post-vertebral fracture, and death. Recent local data were used as inputs for the model parameters. A discount rate of 4.5% was applied to both costs and outcomes.

Results

From the perspective of the healthcare system, denosumab was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to all comparators, considering one unit of Korea’s gross domestic product per capita, USA dollar (USD) 34,870. Denosumab was cost-saving compared to ibandronate (oral) and raloxifene. Compared to alendronate, denosumab was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 767.10 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER of denosumab vs. ibandronate IV, risedronate, and zoledronate was USD 685.63, USD 1,469.71, USD 4,668.53 per QALY, respectively.

Conclusions

The findings of this analysis suggest that denosumab is a cost-effective therapeutic option for preventing fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in South Korea.

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 romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture in Canada

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab followed by alendronate versus oral bisphosphonates alone in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at very high risk for fracture in Canada. Results showed that romosozumab sequenced to alendronate is a cost-effective treatment option, dominating both alendronate and risedronate alone.

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the value of romosozumab sequenced to alendronate compared to alendronate or risedronate alone, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with a history of osteoporotic fracture and who are at very high risk for future fracture in Canada.

METHODS

A Markov model followed a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic women at very high risk for future fractures, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab and alendronate compared to oral bisphosphonates alone. A total treatment period of 5 years was assumed. Quality-adjusted life years and costs were estimated for each comparator across health states defined by different types of fragility fractures.

RESULTS

Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with a lifetime gain of 0.103 and 0.127 QALYs and a cost reduction of $343 and $3805, relative to alendronate and risedronate, respectively. These results were driven by a reduction of the number of fractures (2561 per 1000 patients, versus 2700 for alendronate and 2724 for risedronate over lifetime). Romosozumab/alendronate had the highest probability of being cost-effective, relative to alendronate and risedronate, at any willingness to pay threshold value.

CONCLUSION

Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with reduced costs and greater benefit relative to other comparators. Probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses indicate that romosozumab/alendronate represents the best value for money; the uncertainty analyses are robust, and therefore romosozumab should be considered for reimbursement by public drug plans in Canada .

Real-world cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of continued denosumab treatment, compared with discontinuation of denosumab after one dose, for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan, using real-world fracture reduction effectiveness and cost data. Outcomes indicate that continued denosumab treatment produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD $16,743 per QALY.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continued denosumab use versus discontinuation after one dose, for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan, using real-world fracture reduction effectiveness and cost data.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model was used to evaluate the lifetime costs and QALYs associated with continued denosumab treatment versus discontinuation of treatment after one dose. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of Taiwan's healthcare system and used a discount rate of 3% per annum. The patient population consisted of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis with a mean age of 77 years who initiated denosumab treatment. Fracture reduction effectiveness data, baseline fracture rates, mortality data, and costs of fracture were informed by Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database.

RESULTS

Model outcomes showed that continued treatment with denosumab produced an expected gain of 0.042 QALYs and an incremental cost of USD $704, compared with discontinuation of denosumab after one dose. This corresponds to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD $16,743 per QALY gained. Probabilistic and scenario analysis showed that results are stable to variations in model assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, at a cost per QALY threshold equivalent to gross domestic product per capita in 2020 in Taiwan (USD $30,038), continued treatment with denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis is cost-effective compared with treatment discontinuation.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for high-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Thailand

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture in Thailand.Materials and methods: A published Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model was populated with country-specific data as available and other published data as needed. The model used a societal perspective, lifetime horizon, efficacy data from network meta-analysis of trials, and included costs for direct medical and non-medical care, informal care, and osteoporosis treatments to compare denosumab to no pharmacologic treatment (calcium and vitamin D supplements only) and to oral weekly alendronate. The base case (high-risk population) included postmenopausal women with femoral neck T-score ≤-2.5, mean age 65 years at entry, and history of vertebral fracture.Results: High-risk women with osteoporosis using denosumab had the greatest number of life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with higher reductions in hip and vertebral fracture incidence compared with patients with no pharmacologic treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 119,575 Thai Baht (THB) per QALY for denosumab versus no pharmacologic treatment and 199,186 THB per QALY for denosumab versus alendronate. Among Thai postmenopausal women with high-risk of fractures, denosumab was cost-effective compared with no pharmacologic treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed models were most sensitive to changes in denosumab pricing.Limitations: Data from other countries used when country-specific data were unavailable may not accurately reflect the true experience in Thailand. The model focused explicitly on hip, vertebral, and wrist fractures, and therefore provides a conservative estimate of the overall potential impact of osteoporosis-related fracture. The fracture risk was not adjusted to reflect potential changes in risk after denosumab treatment discontinuation.Conclusions: In Thailand, denosumab offers a cost-effective osteoporosis treatment option versus no pharmacologic treatment in postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture.

Cost-effectiveness of tacrolimus for the treatment of moderate-to-severe lupus nephritis in China

Aim: Therapy for lupus nephritis (LN) requires treatment with immunosuppressive regimens, often including intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVCY), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine. Additionally, tacrolimus (original form or generic) is recommended to treat LN patients in Asia, including China. However, the cost-effectiveness of tacrolimus therapy has not previously been assessed. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of tacrolimus in the treatment of moderate-to-severe LN versus standard therapies in China. Materials & methods: This cost-effectiveness model combined a decision-tree/Markov-model structure to map transitions between health states during induction and maintenance treatment phases. Induction with tacrolimus, IVCY or MMF, was followed by tacrolimus, MMF or azathioprine maintenance. Results: According to the model, during induction, complete remission rates were higher with tacrolimus versus IVCY (relative risk 1.40 vs IVCY [deterministic sensitivity analysis minimum 0.92, maximum 2.13]) and time to response was shorter. Relapse rates were lower with tacrolimus versus azathioprine or MMF during maintenance. Tacrolimus induction and maintenance was the most cost-effective regimen, incurring the lowest total costs (CN¥180,448) with the highest quality-adjusted life-years. Conclusion: The model demonstrated that tacrolimus use in both induction and maintenance therapy may be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for LN in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Osteoporosis Consistent with the Revised Economic Evaluation Guidelines for Canada

Introduction. Given the lack of independent analyses comparing numerous pharmacotherapies for osteoporosis, the study objective was to identify the optimal osteoporosis treatment based on a woman's age, fracture history, and ability to tolerate oral bisphosphonates adopting practices recommended in the recently revised Canadian guidelines. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the health care system perspective compared alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, zoledronate, denosumab, and no pharmacotherapy using a Markov model incorporating data on fracture risk and their associated costs, mortality, and disutility and treatment effect. Stratified analysis was conducted based on age, fracture history, and ability to tolerate oral bisphosphonates. Expected lifetime outcomes were obtained through probabilistic analysis with scenario analyses addressing methodological and structural uncertainty. Results. For women able to tolerate oral bisphosphonates, risedronate and etidronate were dominated. Compared to no therapy, alendronate was either dominant or was associated with a low incremental cost per QALY (quality-adjusted life years) gained (ICER)-less than CAN$3,751 based on age and fracture history. In comparison with alendronate, both zoledronate and denosumab were either dominated or associated with a high ICER-greater than CAN$660,000 per QALY. For women unable to tolerate bisphosphonates, dependent on age and fracture history, the ICER for zoledronate versus no therapy ranged from CAN$17,770 to CAN$94,365 per QALY. For all strata, denosumab was dominated by zoledronate or had an ICER greater than CAN$3.0 million. Scenario analyses found consistent findings. Conclusions. Based on a threshold of CAN$50,000 per QALY, alendronate is optimal for osteoporotic women who can tolerate oral bisphosphonates regardless of age or fracture history. For women unable to tolerate oral bisphosphonates, zoledronate is optimal for women with previous fracture or aged 80 to 84 or over 90 with no previous fracture.

Denosumab: A Review in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Denosumab (Prolia^®; Pralia^®) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the key bone resorption mediator RANKL. The drug is administered via subcutaneous injection once every 6 months and is approved for various indications, including the treatment of postmenopausal (PM) women with osteoporosis at increased/high risk of fracture or failure/intolerance of other osteoporosis therapies (indications featured in this review). Denosumab showed benefit in several phase 3 or 4 studies in PM women with osteoporosis or low bone mineral density (BMD), including the pivotal 3-year double-blind FREEDOM trial and its 7-year open-label extension. Denosumab reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral and hip fractures and increased BMD across skeletal sites versus placebo in FREEDOM, with these benefits maintained over up to 10 years' therapy in the extension. The drug was also more effective in improving BMD than bisphosphonates, including in women switched from a bisphosphonate regimen, in 1-year trials; however, whether these differences translate into differences in anti-fracture efficacy is unclear. Denosumab was generally well tolerated over up to 10 years' treatment, although an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures was observed after discontinuation of the drug. Thus, denosumab is a key treatment option for PM women with osteoporosis who have an increased/high risk of fracture or failure/intolerance of other osteoporosis therapies, although the potential for multiple vertebral fractures to occur after discontinuation of the drug requires consideration of subsequent management options.

What are we paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of patented denosumab and generic alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Zoledronic acid and denosumab were funded by the Australian government for the management of osteoporosis at an equivalent price to alendronate. The price of alendronate has declined by around 65 %, but the price of the other two therapies has remained stable. Using data published since the listing, this paper reports current estimates of the value of denosumab compared to alendronate from an Australian health system perspective.

METHODS

A cohort-based state transition model was developed that predicted changes in bone mineral density (BMD), and calibrated fracture probabilities as a function of BMD, age and previous fracture to estimate differences in costs and QALYs gained over a 10-year time horizon.

RESULTS

The base-case incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab versus alendronate was $246,749. There is a near zero probability that denosumab is cost-effective at a threshold value of $100,000 per QALY gained. If the price of denosumab was reduced by 50 %, the incremental cost per QALY gained falls to $50,068.

DISCUSSION

Current Australian legislation precludes price reviews when comparator therapies come off patent. The presented analysis illustrates a review process, incorporating clinical data collected since the original submission to inform a price at which denosumab would provide value for money.

Potential cost-effectiveness for using patient decision aids to guide osteoporosis treatment

We use a model to predict whether using a patient decision aid in patients considering bisphosphonate therapy would be a good use of health resources. We found that if the decision aid improved adherence, and only marginally increased time physicians needed with their patients, then the decision-aid would be cost-effective.

INTRODUCTION

Oral bisphosphonates have been shown to reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture. Adherence is crucial but suboptimal. A recent study suggests that a patient decision aid, which facilitates shared decision-making, could be effective in increasing adherence to bisphosphonates. But decision aids come at a cost in terms of additional time spent with physicians. This study considers the emerging evidence on the role of patient decision aids in improving adherence to bisphosphonates and their potential costs to inform future decision-making and research priorities.

METHODS

We estimate the hypothetical cost-effectiveness of a patient decision aid detailing the benefits and risks of bisphosphonates for osteoporotic patients, from a Canadian healthcare perspective. A previously developed and validated Markov microsimulation model was adapted to include use of a patient decision aid to support the decision of whether to initiate bisphosphonate therapy, and subsequent influence on adherence and future fractures. We considered 2014 costs and benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

A patient decision aid that could improve treatment initiation rates or persistence (adherence) by 20 %, or a linear combination of the two, in osteoporotic women aged 70+ over a 3-year treatment period was found to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below $50,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient decision aids have the potential to be cost-effective in osteoporosis so long as they increase adherence under certain conditions. Funding further research on the long-term effectiveness and costs of a patient decision aid which outlines all treatment options for osteoporosis patients is justified.

Cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service--a real-world evaluation after 6 years of service provision

The cost-effectiveness of a less intensive fracture liaison service is unknown. We evaluated a fracture liaison service that had been educating and referring patients for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for 6 years. Our results suggest that a less intensive fracture liaison service, with moderate effectiveness, can still be worthwhile.

INTRODUCTION

Fragility fractures are common among older patients; the risk of re-fracture is high but could be reduced with treatments; different versions of fracture liaison service have emerged to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures. But the cost-effectiveness of a less intensive model is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening program, a fracture liaison service that had been educating and referring fragility fracture patients across Ontario, Canada to receive bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatments since 2007.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the program over the patients' remaining lifetime, using rates of bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment and cost of intervention from the program, and supplemented it with the published literature. The analysis took the perspective of a third-party health-care payer. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5 % per year. Sensitivity analyses assessed the effects of different assumptions on the results.

RESULTS

The program improved quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 4.3 years and led to increased costs of CAD $83,000 for every 1000 patients screened, at a cost of $19,132 per QALY gained. The enhanced model, the Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Fast Track program that includes ordering bone mineral density testing, was even more cost-effective ($5720 per QALY gained).

CONCLUSIONS

The Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening program appears to be a cost-effective way to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures.

Update on denosumab in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis: patient preference and adherence

Patient adherence to many osteoporosis treatments, primarily bisphosphonates, is generally poor, thus leading to a significant reduction in antifracture efficacy. Patient perceptions about the necessity of the prescribed medication to treat osteoporosis and the concerns about the potential adverse effects are important and potentially modifiable determinants of adherence, in addition to other factors, such as difficult dosing regimens and high dosing frequency. Denosumab (Dmab) is a fully human monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL), which, through the prevention of the RANKL/RANK interaction, inhibits osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and significantly reduces the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures. It is administered subcutaneously every 6 months for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Preference and adherence to Dmab treatment were assessed in various clinical trials. Although with some limitations, available data suggest that Dmab is preferred to bisphosphonates, produces greater satisfaction than bisphosphonates, and would be preferentially chosen for long-term treatment. Moreover, patient perceptions about the necessity of Dmab treatment clearly outweigh the concerns about the injections, and positive beliefs about treatment positively influence medication-taking behavior. According to these data, Dmab may represent a reasonable alternative to bisphosphonates, particularly for osteoporotic women in whom a suboptimal or even poor adherence to oral treatments is expected.

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.

Cost-utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for fracture prevention compared with no treatment, generic bisphosphonates, and strontium ranelate in a cohort of osteoporotic postmenopausal women in Spain.

METHODS

A Markov model represented the possible health state transitions of Spanish postmenopausal women from initiation of fracture prevention treatment until age 100 years or death. The perspective was that of the Spanish National Health System. Fracture efficacy data for denosumab were taken from a randomized controlled trial. Fracture efficacy data for alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and strontium ranelate were taken from an independent meta-analysis. Data on the incidence of fractures in Spain were either taken from the published literature or derived from Swedish data after applying a correction factor based on the reported incidence from each country. Resource use in each health state was obtained from the literature, or where no data had been published, conservative assumptions were made. Utility values for the various fracture health states were taken from published sources. The primary endpoints of the model were life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab against the comparators.

RESULTS

Denosumab reduced the risk of fractures compared with either no treatment or the other active interventions, and produced the greatest gains in life-years and QALYs. With an annual acquisition cost of €417.34 for denosumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab versus no treatment, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate were estimated at €6,823, €16,294, €4,895, and €2,205 per QALY gained, respectively. Denosumab dominated strontium ranelate. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSION

Our analyses show that denosumab is a cost-effective intervention for fracture prevention in osteoporotic postmenopausal women in Spain compared with alendronate and risedronate, and is a dominant treatment option compared with strontium ranelate.

Denosumab: a review of its use in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

Subcutaneous denosumab (Prolia(®) [USA, Europe]; Pralia(®) [Japan]) once every 6 months is indicated in several countries for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at increased or high risk for fractures (featured indication). In some countries, it is also indicated for use in postmenopausal women who have failed or are intolerant to other osteoporosis treatments. In several international, phase III trials (≤3 years' duration) involving more than 12,000 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis or low bone mineral density (BMD), including Asian studies, denosumab was an effective and generally well tolerated treatment. Relative to placebo, denosumab treatment significantly reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral and hip fractures and increased BMD at all skeletal sites evaluated, including the lumbar spine and total hip. Furthermore, the benefits of denosumab treatment were generally evident after the first dose and were maintained during up to 8 years of treatment in an ongoing extension study. The tolerability profile of denosumab during this extension phase was consistent with that observed during the initial 3-year FREEDOM trial. At 12 months, denosumab treatment increased BMD at the total hip, lumbar spine and/or femoral neck and reduced markers of bone turnover to a significantly greater extent than oral bisphosphonates in women who were essentially bisphosphonate-naive and in those who had switched from alendronate to denosumab treatment. Further clinical experience, including an ongoing postmarketing safety study, will more fully define the long-term safety of denosumab. In the meantime, denosumab is an important option for the treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at increased or high-risk of fractures, including in women at increased risk of fracture who are unable to take other osteoporosis treatments.

Receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL)/RANK/osteoprotegerin system in bone and other tissues (review)

The receptor activator of nuclear factor‑κB ligand (RANKL)/RANK/osteoprotegerin (OPG) system was identified in the late 1990s, ending the search for the specific factors expressed by osteoblasts and stromal cells in order to regulate osteoclastogenesis. The identification of the RANKL/RANK/OPG system was a breakthrough in bone biology; however, the system not only works as a dominant mediator in osteoclast activation, formation and survival, but also functions in other tissues, including the mammary glands, brain and lymph nodes. Evidence has indicated that the existence of the RANKL/RANK/OPG system in these tissues suggests that it may have specific functions beyond those in bone. Disorders of the RANKL/RANK/OPG system are associated with certain human diseases, including postmenopausal osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), bone tumors and certain bone metastatic tumors. Genetic studies have indicated that the RANKL/RANK/OPG system may be a key regulator in the formation of lymph nodes and in the autoimmune disease RA, which further suggests that the immune system may interact with the RANKL/RANK/OPG system. The present review aimed to provide an overview of the role of the RANKL/RANK/OPG system in osteoclastogenesis, bone disease and tissues beyond bone.

Spanish Menopause Society position statement: Use of denosumab in postmenopausal women

Denosumab is a new drug developed for the treatment of osteoporosis. Moreover, increasing evidences link denosumab with benefits in cancer, an area of interest for those in charge of the postmenopausal health. Denosumab has shown efficacy in the control of bone loss associated with hypogonadic states created by chemotherapy in breast and other cancers. Moreover, some studies reveal efficacy in reducing the progression of metastases. A panel of experts from the Spanish Menopause Society has met to develop usage recommendations based on the best available evidence.

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.