Cost-effectiveness of sequential daily teriparatide/weekly alendronate compared with alendronate monotherapy for older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in Japan

The cost-effectiveness of a co-managed care model for elderly hip fracture patients in China: a modelling study

Background

The clinical effectiveness of multidisciplinary co-managed care for hip fracture patients in China has been demonstrated in a multicenter non-randomized controlled study. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the co-managed care.

Methods

The study is based on a multicenter clinical trial (n = 2071) in China. We developed a state transition microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the co-managed care compared with usual care for hip fracture patients from healthcare system perspective. The costs incorporated into the model included hospitalization costs, post-discharge expenses, and secondary fracture therapy costs. Effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and effects were discounted at 5% annually. A simulation cycle length of 1-year and a lifetime horizon were employed. The cost-effectiveness threshold was established at USD 37,118. To address uncertainties, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.

Findings

In the base case analysis, the co-managed care group had a lifetime cost of USD 31,571 and achieved an effectiveness of 3.22 QALYs, whereas the usual care group incurred a cost of USD 27,878 and gained 2.85 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 9981 per QALY gained; thus the co-managed care model was cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the age of having hip fractures and hospitalization costs in the intervention group.

Interpretation

The co-managed care in hip fracture patients represents value for money, and should be scaled up and prioritized for funding in China.

Funding

The study is supported by Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research (2022-1-2071, 2018-1-2071).

A systematic review of cost‑effectiveness analyses of sequential treatment for osteoporosis

Sequential treatment of osteoporosis has been increasingly mentioned in recent years. However, the corresponding systematic review has not been reported. This study aims to systematically review and assess all full-text pharmacoeconomic studies of sequential treatment for osteoporosis. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), CNKI, and Wanfang Database to identify original articles, published before June 17, 2022. The quality of included articles was evaluated by the updated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF). In general, ten articles were included in this review. For the comparison between sequential treatment and bisphosphonate monotherapy, more than 75% of studies demonstrated the sequential treatment was cost-effective or dominant, with the exception of sequential treatment involving teriparatide. When the comparisons occurred between the two sequential treatment groups, the sequential treatments associated with either abaloparatide or romosozumab were cost-effective or dominant compared to the sequential treatment involving teriparatide. Several major key drivers of cost-effectiveness included drug cost, medication persistence and adherence, drug effect on fracture risk, offset effect, time horizon, and baseline fracture risk. The most of studies were identified as high quality in CHEERS (2022) and ESCEO-IOF. The cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment for osteoporosis is influenced by multiple factors. Generally, the sequential treatments involving abaloparatide, romosozumab, denosumab, and bisphosphonates may be considered as the preferred option for osteoporosis with high fracture risk, while the sequential treatment with teriparatide was not a cost-effectiveness strategy. The ESCEO-IOF and CHEER (2022) increase the transparency, comparability, extrapolation, and quality of research, engage patients and the general public in research on health services and policies, and help improve the quality of health technology assessment.

Medical expenditures for fragility hip fracture in Japan: a study using the nationwide health insurance claims database

Using the nationwide health insurance claims database in Japan, we estimated total annual medical expenditures for fragility hip fracture across the population at 329.2 billion yen (2.99 billion US dollars). Long-term care expenditures were not included. Fragility hip fracture imposes a considerable health economic burden on society in Japan.

PURPOSE

Fragility hip fracture imposes a substantial health economic burden on society globally. We aimed to estimate medical expenditures for fragility hip fracture using the nationwide health insurance claims database in Japan.

METHODS

We included adults aged 60 and over without prior hip fracture who were admitted for fragility hip fracture (i.e., femoral neck or extracapsular) between October 2014 and October 2015 (13 months). Fragility hip fracture was identified through newly assigned disease codes for fracture and procedure codes associated with the fracture. As a proxy for medical expenditures per patient, incremental payments were calculated (i.e., the difference between the total payments 6 months before and after fragility hip fracture). The total payments included health insurance reimbursements and copayments for inpatient and outpatient services. Long-term care expenditures were not included in this study.

RESULTS

We identified 142,361 individuals (28,868 male and 113,493 female) with fragility hip fracture. Mean medical expenditures for fragility hip fracture per patient were 2,550,000 yen (¥) (23,180 US dollars [$]; ¥110 = $1) in male and ¥2,494,000 ($22,670) in female patients, respectively. Total annual medical expenditures for fragility hip fracture across the population were 329.2 billion yen (2.99 billion US dollars): 67.96 billion yen (620 million US dollars) in male and 261.24 billion yen (2.37 billion US dollars) in female patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to estimate medical expenditures for hip fracture using the nationwide health insurance claims database, which represents almost all health insurance claims in Japan. Fragility hip fracture inflicts a considerable health economic burden on society in Japan.

Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments

Osteoporosis care has evolved markedly over the last 50 years, such that there are now an established clinical definition, validated methods of fracture risk assessment and a range of effective pharmacological agents. Currently, bone-forming (anabolic) agents, in many countries, are used in those patients who have continued to lose bone mineral density (BMD), patients with multiple subsequent fractures or those who have fractured despite treatment with antiresorptive agents. However, head-to-head data suggest that anabolic agents have greater rapidity and efficacy for fracture risk reduction than do antiresorptive therapies. The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) convened an expert working group to discuss the tools available to identify patients at high risk of fracture, review the evidence for the use of anabolic agents as the initial intervention in patients at highest risk of fracture and consider the sequence of therapy following their use. This position paper sets out the findings of the group and the consequent recommendations. The key conclusion is that the current evidence base supports an "anabolic first" approach in patients found to be at very high risk of fracture, followed by maintenance therapy using an antiresorptive agent, and with the subsequent need for antiosteoporosis therapy addressed over a lifetime horizon.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Denosumab/Zoledronic Acid Compared With Zoledronic Acid Monotherapy for Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women in China

Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

Methods: We updated and utilized a previously validated Markov microsimulation model to obtain the cost-effectiveness of two strategies for treating postmenopausal osteoporotic women. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid (i.e., biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years) with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective. Our study’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to three times the value of China’s per capita GDP in 2020 ($31,512).

Results: The ICERs of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid monotherapy were $59,389/QALY, $23,821/QALY, $22,710/QALY, and $14,027/QALY at age 65, 70, 75, and 80 years, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the most impactful parameter was the persistence rate of the medications. If the persistence rate of denosumab or zoledronic acid was increased by 10%, sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid would be cost-effective at age 65. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential denosumab/zoledronic being cost-effective compared to zoledronic acid monotherapy were approximately 29.3%, 68.7%, 86.1%, and 99.4% for ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 years, respectively, at the WTP threshold of $31,512/QALY.

Conclusion: Among Chinese postmenopausal osteoporosis women over 70 years old, sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid was cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy at the pre-determined WTP threshold.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Teriparatide/Zoledronic Acid Compared With Zoledronic Acid Monotherapy for Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women in China

Objective

We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid relative to zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

Methods

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was updated to examine the cost-effectiveness of daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years (sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid), compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid vs. zoledronic acid monotherapy was $173,223/QALY at age 65 years, which was much higher than the pre-determined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $ 31,512/QALY, and the results were similar at other ages. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the two most impactful parameters were the cost of teriparatide and the residual effects of the medications included in this study. Sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid became cost-effective at age 80 with the cost of teriparatide reduced by 50%. Without the residual effect, the ICER increased to $257,982/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses shown that the probabilities of zoledronic acid monotherapy being cost-effective were 100% at a WTP of $31,512/QALY.

Conclusions

Among Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid was not cost-effective unless the cost of teriparatide was reduced by 50% only for the participants over 80 years.

Which injected antiosteoporotic medication is worth paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four injected antiosteoporotic medications including teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the four drugs above in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history of hip, vertebral, or wrist at various ages (65, 70, 75, and 80) of therapy initiation from the health care payer perspective.

RESULTS

Denosumab was dominant (ie, lower costs and greater quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) compared with other strategies at all ages studied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of zoledronate or ibandronate versus no treatment were $4,482.88/ QALYs or $11,378/QALYs, respectively, at age 65 years, and the results at other ages were similar. In contrast, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of teriparatide strategy compared with no treatment exceeded the pre-determined threshold of a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY regardless of the adoption of the patient assistance program at all ages studied, and a threshold analysis showed that teriparatide without patient assistance program became cost-effective when the annual drug cost is decreased to $1,644.87 (current cost: $8,764.65). The cost-effectiveness decision did not change in most of the one-way sensitivity analyses. A scenario analysis considering no offset effect of denosumab showed that zoledronate had the potential to become the optimal option relative to denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective compared with other strategies were 100% at a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Among postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China, denosumab therapy is cost-effective at all ages examined from the health care payer perspective, compared with teriparatide, zoledronate, or ibandronate. This study will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in China.