Cost-effectiveness of five versus ten years of alendronate treatment prior to drug holiday for women with osteoporosis

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing 5 versus 10 years of alendronate treatment prior to 5-year drug holiday for US postmenopausal women with hip BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5. We found that for most postmenopausal women 5 years of treatment prior to drug holiday is the more effective and cost-effective option.

INTRODUCTION

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 5 versus 10 years of alendronate treatment prior to 5-year drug holiday for postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

METHODS

We created an individual-level state-transition microsimulation model to compare 3 treatment strategies for US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and femoral neck BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5 at baseline: recurrent periods of 5 years of alendronate followed by 5 years of drug holiday (alendronate 5/5), recurrent periods of 10 years of alendronate followed by 5 years of drug holiday (alendronate 10/5), and no alendronate treatment.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis revealed for women initiating treatment at ages 50, 60, and 70, the alendronate 5/5 strategy dominated (was more effective and less costly than) the alendronate 10/5 strategy and no treatment. For women age 80, the alendronate 10/5 strategy dominated. When assuming a lower relative risk of nonvertebral fracture during years 6-10 of alendronate treatment than the base-case assumption, the alendronate 10/5 strategy became the most cost-effective strategy even at younger treatment initiation ages. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings; for treatment initiation ages of 50, 60, and 70, the alendronate 5/5 strategy was favored, whereas for treatment initiation age of 80, the alendronate 10/5 strategy was favored; however, there was uncertainty in these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

After 5 years of alendronate treatment, younger postmenopausal women (ages 50-70) with osteoporosis would likely benefit from a drug holiday, whereas older women (age 80) are likely to benefit from treatment for 10 years before a drug holiday.

Cost-effectiveness of gastro-resistant risedronate tablets for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France

The use of gastro-resistant risedronate, a convenient dosing regimen for oral bisphosphonate therapy, seems a cost-effective strategy compared with weekly alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

INTRODUCTION

Gastro-resistant (GR) risedronate tablets are associated with improved persistence compared to common oral bisphosphonates but are slightly more expensive. This study assessed its cost-effectiveness compared to weekly alendronate and generic risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was used to estimate the lifetime costs (expressed in €2017) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of GR risedronate compared with weekly alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment. Pooled efficacy data for bisphosphonates derived from a previous meta-analysis were used for all treatment options, and persistence data (up to 3 years) were obtained from a large Australian longitudinal study. Evaluation was done for high-risk women 60-80 years of age, with a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤ - 2.5 and/or prevalent vertebral fractures.

RESULTS

In all of the simulated populations, GR risedronate was cost-effective compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment at a threshold of €60,000 per QALY gained. In women with a BMD T-score ≤ - 2.5 and prevalent vertebral fractures, the cost per QALY gained of GR risedronate compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment falls below €20,000 per QALY gained. In women aged 75 years and older, GR risedronate was even shown to be dominant (more QALYs, less costs) compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first economic results about GR risedronate, suggesting that it represents a cost-effective strategy compared with weekly alendronate and generic risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment of Abaloparatide Followed by Alendronate Versus Teriparatide Followed by Alendronate in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis in the United States

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved abaloparatide (ABL) for treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture. With increasing health care spending and drug prices, it is important to quantify the value of newly available treatment options for PMO.

OBJECTIVE

To determine cost-effectiveness of ABL compared with teriparatide (TPTD) for treatment of women with PMO in the United States.

METHODS

A discrete-event simulation (DES) model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of ABL from the US health care perspective. The model included three 18-month treatment strategies with either placebo (PBO), TPTD, or ABL, all followed by additional 5-year treatment with alendronate (ALN). High-risk patients were defined as women with PMO ⩾65 years old with a prior vertebral fracture. Baseline clinical event rates, risk reductions, and patient characteristics were based on the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year period, the DES model yielded average total discounted per-patient costs of $10 212, $46 783, and $26 837 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 6.742, 6.781, and 6.792 for PBO/ALN, TPTD/ALN, and ABL/ALN, respectively. Compared with TPTD/ALN, ABL/ALN accrued higher QALYs at lower cost and produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $333 266/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. In high-risk women, ABL/ALN also had more QALYs and less cost over TPTD/ALN and yielded an ICER of $188 891/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. Conclusion and Relevance: ABL is a dominant treatment strategy over TPTD. In women with PMO at high risk of fracture, ABL is an alternative cost-effective treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of implementing guidelines for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in Japan

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the clinical guideline for the treatment for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO). The treatment indication for GIO in the current Japanese clinical guidelines is likely to be cost-effective except for the limited patients who are at low risk for fracture.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the clinical guideline for the treatment for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system.

METHODS

A patient-level state transition model was developed to predict lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in postmenopausal Japanese women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using glucocorticoid (GC). An annual discount rate of 2% for both costs and QALYs was applied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 5-year alendronate therapy compared with no therapy was estimated with different combinations of the risk factors such as starting age (45, 55, or 65), femoral neck BMD (% young adult mean (YAM) of 70%, 75%, or 80%), dose of GC (2.5, 5, or 10 mg per day), and the presence of previous fracture (yes or no).

RESULTS

For 55-year-old women using GC with a BMD of 75% of YAM, the ICER ranged from $10,958 to $ 29,727 per QALY. Scenario analyses indicated that the lower age, the lower BMD, the higher dose of GC, and the presence of previous fracture associated with lower ICER. The best-case scenario was 45-year-old women with a BMD of 70% of YAM, GC dose of 10 mg per day, and previous fracture, and resulted in healthcare cost-savings. The worst-case scenario was 65-year-old women with a BMD of 80% of YAM, GC dose of 2.5 mg per day, and no previous fracture, and resulted in the ICER of $66,791 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses in the worst-case scenario showed that the annual discount rate for costs and health benefit had the strong influence on the estimated ICER. Although the ICER was influenced by other parameters such as disutility due to vertebral fracture, efficacy of alendronate, and so on, the ICERs remained more than $50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of preventive alendronate therapy for postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using GC is sensitive to age, BMD, GC dose, and the presence of previous fracture. Our analysis suggested that the treatment indication for postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using GC in the current Japanese clinical guidelines is likely to be cost-effective except for the limited patients who are at low risk for fracture.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of once-yearly injection of zoledronic acid for the treatment of osteoporosis in Japan

Model-based economic evaluation was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid. Although zoledronic acid was dominated by alendronate, the incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was quite small in extent. Considering the advantage of once-yearly injection of zoledronic acid in persistence, zoledronic acid might be a cost-effective treatment option compared to once-weekly oral alendronate.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of once-yearly injection of zoledronic acid for the treatment of osteoporosis in Japan.

METHODS

A patient-level state-transition model was developed to predict the outcome of patients with osteoporosis who have experienced a previous vertebral fracture. The efficacy of zoledronic acid was derived from a published network meta-analysis. Lifetime cost and QALYs were estimated for patients who had received zoledronic acid, alendronate, or basic treatment alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of zoledronic acid was estimated.

RESULTS

For patients 70 years of age, zoledronic acid was dominated by alendronate with incremental QALY of -0.004 to -0.000 and incremental cost of 430 USD to 493 USD. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the relative risk of hip fracture and drug cost strongly affected the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid compared to alendronate. Scenario analysis considering treatment persistence showed that the ICER of zoledronic acid compared to alendronate was estimated to be 47,435 USD, 27,018 USD, and 10,749 USD per QALY gained for patients with a T-score of -2.0, -2.5, or -3.0, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although zoledronic acid is dominated by alendronate, the incremental QALY is quite small in extent. Considering the advantage of annual zoledronic acid treatment in compliance and persistence, zoledronic acid may be a cost-effective treatment option compared to alendronate.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus oral alendronate for elderly osteoporotic women in Japan

We constructed a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling elderly osteoporotic Japanese women without prior hip or vertebral fractures over a lifetime horizon. Compared with weekly oral alendronate for 5 years, denosumab every 6 months for 5 years is cost-saving or cost-effective at a conventionally accepted threshold.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous denosumab every 6 months for 5 years compared with weekly oral alendronate for 5 years in Japan.

METHODS

We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] (2016 US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling osteoporotic Japanese women without prior hip or vertebral fractures at various ages of therapy initiation (65, 70, 75, and 80 years) over a lifetime horizon from three perspectives: societal, healthcare sector, and government.

RESULTS

Denosumab was cost-saving compared with alendronate at ages 75 and 80 years from any of the three perspectives. The ICERs of denosumab compared with alendronate were $25,700 and $5000 per QALY at ages 65 and 70 years from a societal perspective and did not exceed a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY from the other two perspectives. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to changes in the effectiveness of denosumab for reducing hip fracture and clinical vertebral fracture and the rate ratio of non-persistence with denosumab compared to alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective compared with alendronate were 89-100% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Among community-dwelling elderly osteoporotic women in Japan, denosumab every 6 months for 5 years is cost-saving or cost-effective at a conventionally accepted threshold of willingness-to-pay at all ages examined, compared with weekly alendronate for 5 years. This study provides insight to clinicians and policymakers regarding the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in elderly women.

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategy for postmenopausal Japanese women

Although an osteoporosis screening program has been implemented as a health promotion project in Japan, its cost-effectiveness has yet to be elucidated fully. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and found that osteoporosis screening and treatment would be cost-effective for Japanese women over 60 years.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and drug therapy in the Japanese healthcare system for postmenopausal women with no history of fracture.

METHODS

A patient-level state transition model was developed to predict the outcomes of Japanese women with no previous fracture. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for women who receive osteoporosis screening and alendronate therapy for 5 years and those who do not receive the screening and treatments. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the screening option compared with the no screening option was estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the influence of parameter uncertainty on the base case results.

RESULTS

The ICERs of osteoporosis screening and treatments for Japanese women aged 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and 75-79 years were estimated to be $89,242, $64,010, $40,596, $27,697, $17,027, and $9771 per QALY gained, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that several parameters such as the disutility due to vertebral fracture had a significant influence on the base case results. Applying a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability that the screening option became cost-effectiveness estimated to 50.9, 56.3, 59.1, and 64.7 % for women aged 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and 75-79 years, respectively. Scenario analyses showed that the ICER for women aged 55-59 years with at least one clinical risk factor was below $50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening and alendronate therapy for osteoporosis would be cost-effective for postmenopausal Japanese women over 60 years. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the individual need for osteoporosis screening should be determined by age and clinical risk factors.

[Bisphosphonate use and related pharmaceutical issues II]

Bisphosphonates have basic role in decreasing progression of malignant bone processes as well as in the prevention and therapy of osteoporosis. Use of bisphosphonates is common in Hungary since 20 years. In the past decade their reimbursement has been changed several times, the use of generics decreased the price of bisphosphonates. In this paper we analyze the consumption of prescribed bisphosphonates in Hungary.

DATA

Prescription data of the National Health Insurance Fund of Hungary.

METHOD

We analysed the prescribed bisphosphonates between 2006-2014. We examined the type and amount of bisphosphonates used by years. After identifying therapy areas of use, we calculated the years of therapy from the DOT data. From this data we estimated the mean bisphosphonate therapy costs and costs falling for the patients. Changes in the reimbursement system regarding these medications was analysed.

RESULTS

Bisphosphonate years of therapy was decreasing in osteoporosis over the 9 years examined. In oncology bisphosphonate use shows stability in drug consumption. In both therapeutic areas the proportion in therapy choice of specific bisphosphonates has changed. Bisphosphonate reimbursement costs paid by the Hungarian reimbursement system was approx. 8 billion HUF in osteoporosis and 4,7 billion HUF in oncology in 2006. Changes of the reimbursement strategy, the compulsory generic use and decreasing consumption in osteoporosis has significantly reduced the overall costs by 2014.

CONCLUSION

According to our results bisphpsphonate use in oncology is moderate in Hungary, a decreasing consumption can be detected in osteoporosis, that is still expected to decrease. The use of generics reduced bisphosphonate therapy costs and also overall health care costs. In osteoporosis patients cost have substantially lowered.

Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service

Individuals who sustain fragility fractures are at high risk of refracture. However, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low for these patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the performance and cost-effectiveness of introducing a fracture liaison service (FLS) into a tertiary hospital. In "nonhospitalized" ambulatory patients who had sustained fragility fractures, we assessed baseline osteoporosis investigation and treatment rates, and subsequently, the impact of introducing an orthopedic osteoporosis policy and an FLS. Outcomes measured were uptake of osteoporosis intervention, patient satisfaction, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. QALYs were calculated over 5 years using predicted fracture risks without intervention and estimated fracture risk reduction with intervention. At baseline (n = 49), 2% of ambulatory patients who had sustained fragility fractures underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and 6% received osteoporosis-specific medication. After introduction of an osteoporosis policy (n = 58), 28% were investigated with DXA (p < 0.0001). However, treatment rates were unchanged. An FLS was introduced, reviewing 203 new patients over the inaugural 2 years (mean age [standard deviation], 67 (11) years; 77% female). All underwent DXA, and criteria for osteoporosis and osteopenia were identified in 44% and 40%, respectively. Osteoporosis medications were prescribed to 61% patients (risedronate: 22%, alendronate: 16%, strontium ranelate: 13%, zoledronic acid: 8%, other: 2%). Eighty-five of 90 questionnaire respondents were very satisfied or satisfied with the FLS. With the treatment prescribed over 5 years, we conservatively estimated that this FLS would reduce nonvertebral refractures from 59 to 50, improving QALYs by 0.054 and costing $1716 per patient (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $31749). This FLS model improves uptake of osteoporosis intervention guidelines, is popular among patients, and improves cost-effectiveness. Thus, it has the capacity to substantially improve health in a cost-effective way.

Cost-minimization study comparing annual infusion of zoledronic acid or weekly oral alendronate in women with low bone mineral density

Cost-minimization study to assess the annual direct costs of 2 antiresorptive strategies in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral densities (BMDs). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 70 mg of oral weekly alendronate or a 1-time 5mg of intravenous zoledronic acid. All medical and nonmedical direct costs were recorded for 1 yr. Student's t-test or the Chi-squared test was used. A total of 101 postmenopausal women were enrolled with a mean age of 58.3 ± 7.6 yr and a postmenopausal period of 13.5 ± 8.3 yr. A total of 50 patients completed 1 yr of alendronate and 51 patients received zoledronic acid. At baseline, no differences were seen between the 2 groups in anthropometric measures, comorbidities, and bone mineral density. The costs for medical attention for low bone mass were $81,532 (US Dollars) for the alendronate group and $69,251 for the zoledronic acid group; the cost per patient was $1631 in the alendronate group vs $1358 in the zoledronic acid group (p<0.0001). Therefore, zoledronic acid treatment provided an annual savings of 15% of the direct costs compared with oral alendronate treatment. Moreover, there was a significant increase in lumbar spine T-scores in the zoledronic acid group when compared with the alendronate group. Annual zoledronic acid infusion as an antiresorptive treatment in women with low BMD provides significant monetary savings when compared with weekly alendronate therapy for 1 yr. Zoledronic acid infusion is also linked to higher increase in BMD and compliance.

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.

Intervention thresholds for denosumab in the UK using a FRAX®-based cost-effectiveness analysis

The objective was to undertake a health economic analysis of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis in women from the UK, using the FRAX® tool. Denosumab was cost-effective in women with a risk of major osteoporotic fracture meeting or exceeding approximately 20% who are unable to take, comply with or tolerate generic alendronate.

INTRODUCTION

Denosumab is a novel biologic agent developed for the treatment of osteoporosis, which has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures in a phase-III trial. The objective of the present study was to undertake a health economic analysis of denosumab in women from the UK. Ten-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture at which denosumab is a cost-effective alternative to no treatment, generic alendronate, risedronate and strontium ranelate were estimated.

METHODS

A previously published Markov model was adapted to incorporate fracture and mortality risk assessments based on absolute fracture probability, as estimated by FRAX®. The model included treatment persistence and residual effect after discontinuation.

RESULTS

At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year and a 10-year fracture probability equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture, denosumab was cost-effective compared to no treatment from the age of 70 years. At the same WTP, denosumab was-irrespective of age-cost-effective compared to no treatment at a major osteoporotic fracture probability of approximately 20%. Denosumab was estimated to cost-effectively replace strontium, risedronate and generic alendronate at 10-year probabilities exceeding 11, 19 and 32%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FRAX® facilitates the estimation of cost-effectiveness-based intervention thresholds applicable to patients with different combinations of clinical risk factors, which more closely matches the situation in clinical practice. Denosumab is cost-effective in patients with major osteoporotic fracture probabilities meeting or exceeding approximately 20% who are unable to take, comply with or tolerate generic alendronate.

Cost-effective intervention thresholds against osteoporotic fractures based on FRAX® in Switzerland

FRAX-based cost-effective intervention thresholds in the Swiss setting were determined. Assuming a willingness to pay at 2× Gross Domestic Product per capita, an intervention aimed at reducing fracture risk in women and men with a 10-year probability for a major osteoporotic fracture at or above 15% is cost-effective.

INTRODUCTION

The fracture risk assessment algorithm FRAX® has been recently calibrated for Switzerland. The aim of the present analysis was to determine FRAX-based fracture probabilities at which intervention becomes cost-effective.

METHODS

A previously developed and validated state transition Markov cohort model was populated with Swiss epidemiological and cost input parameters. Cost-effective FRAX-based intervention thresholds (cost-effectiveness approach) and the cost-effectiveness of intervention with alendronate (original molecule) in subjects with a FRAX-based fracture risk equivalent to that of a woman with a prior fragility fracture and no other risk factor (translational approach) were calculated based on the Swiss FRAX model and assuming a willingness to pay of 2 times Gross Domestic Product per capita for one Quality-adjusted Life-Year.

RESULTS

In Swiss women and men aged 50 years and older, drug intervention aimed at decreasing fracture risk was cost-effective with a 10-year probability for a major osteoporotic fracture at or above 13.8% (range 10.8% to 15.0%) and 15.1% (range 9.9% to 19.9%), respectively. Age-dependent variations around these mean values were modest. Using the translational approach, treatment was cost-effective or cost-saving after the age 60 years in women and 55 in men who had previously sustained a fragility fracture. Using the latter approach leads to considerable underuse of the current potential for cost-effective interventions against fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a FRAX-based intervention threshold of 15% for both women and men should permit cost-effective access to therapy to patients at high fracture probability based on clinical risk factors and thereby contribute to further reduce the growing burden of osteoporotic fractures in Switzerland.

Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment

Introduction

Since alendronate became available in generic form in the Unites States in 2008, its price has been decreasing. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women.

Methods

Microsimulation cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment for U.S. women age 65 and older. We assumed screening initiation at age 65 with central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and alendronate treatment for individuals with osteoporosis; with a comparator of “no screening” and treatment only after fracture occurrence. We evaluated annual alendronate costs of $20 through $800; outcome measures included fractures; nursing home admission; medication adverse events; death; costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2010 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. A lifetime time horizon was used, and direct costs were included. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Base-case analysis results showed that at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less, osteoporosis screening followed by treatment was cost-saving, resulting in lower total costs than no screening as well as more QALYs (10.6 additional quality-adjusted life-days). When assuming alendronate costs of $400 through $800, screening and treatment resulted in greater lifetime costs than no screening but was highly cost-effective, with ICERs ranging from $714 per QALY gained through $13,902 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment was robust to joint input parameter estimate variation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY at all alendronate costs evaluated.

Conclusions

Osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment is effective and highly cost-effective for postmenopausal women across a range of alendronate costs, and may be cost-saving at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less.

Evidence to inform decision makers in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment strategies for postmenopausal osteoporosis

OBJECTIVES

To assess value for money of providing systematic screening for osteoporosis among postmenopausal women and medical treatments for those diagnosed with osteoporosis as evidence-based decision making for the revision of the National List of Essential Medicines.

METHODS

Decision analytic models were constructed, using a societal perspective, to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from systematic screening using the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry alone compared with no screening. Alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, and nasal calcitonin were economically evaluated to determine a treatment of choice for the prevention of osteoporosis-related fractures. Most input parameters were obtained from literature reviews, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses, if available. The service costs and related household expenses were based on the Thai setting. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to incorporate the impact of parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool and sequential dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry provided better value for money for osteoporosis screening among young age groups (<60 years old). Although there was no significant difference in cost per QALY for older age groups, alendronate provided the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio while nasal calcitonin presented the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. It was shown that providing medication for a secondary prevention yielded a much higher cost per QALY gained compared with providing medication for a primary prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the benchmark set at 100,000 Thai baht per QALY gained, providing systematic screening and treatment for osteoporosis was cost-ineffective in the Thai setting.

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

OBJECTIVE

Denosumab is a novel biologic agent approved in Canada for treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis (PMO) in women at high risk for fracture or who have failed or are intolerant to other osteoporosis therapies. This study estimated cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs usual care from the perspective of the Ontario public payer.

METHODS

A previously published PMO Markov cohort model was adapted for Canada to estimate cost-effectiveness of denosumab. The primary analysis included women with demographic characteristics similar to those from the pivotal phase III denosumab PMO trial (FREEDOM; age 72 years, femoral neck BMD T-score -2.16 SD, vertebral fracture prevalence 23.6%). Three additional scenario sub-groups were examined including women: (1) at high fracture risk, defined in FREEDOM as having at least two of three risk factors (age 70+; T-score ≤ -3.0 SD at lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck; prevalent vertebral fracture); (2) age 75+; and (3) intolerant or contraindicated to oral bisphosphonates (BPs). Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon comparing denosumab to usual care ('no therapy', alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene [sub-group 3 only]). The analysis considered treatment-specific persistence and post-discontinuation residual efficacy, as well as treatment-specific adverse events. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The multi-therapy comparisons resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab vs alendronate of $60,266 (2010 CDN$) (primary analysis) and $27,287 per quality-adjusted life year gained for scenario sub-group 1. Denosumab dominated all therapies in the remaining scenarios.

LIMITATIONS

Key limitations include a lack of long-term, real-world, Canadian data on persistence with denosumab as well as an absence of head-to-head clinical data, leaving one to rely on meta-analyses based on trials comparing treatment to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab may be cost-effective compared to oral PMO treatments for women at high risk of fractures and those who are intolerant and/or contraindicated to oral BPs.

Persistence with biologic therapies in the Medicare coverage gap

OBJECTIVES

To describe persistence with teriparatide and other biologic therapies in Medicare Part D plans with and without a coverage gap.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective (2006) cohort study of Medicare Part D prescription drug plan beneficiaries from a large benefits company. Two plans with a coverage gap (defined as "basic") were combined and compared with a single plan with coverage for generic and branded medications (defined as "complete").

METHODS

Patients taking alendronate (nonbiologic comparator), teriparatide, etanercept, adalimumab, interferon β-1a, or glatiramer acetate were selected for the study. For patients with complete coverage, equivalent financial thresholds were used to define the "gap."The definition of discontinuation was failure to fill the index prescription after reaching the gap.

RESULTS

For alendronate, 27% of 133,260 patients had enrolled in the complete plan. Patients taking biologic therapies had more commonly enrolled in complete plans: teriparatide (66% of 6221), etanercept (58% of 1469), adalimumab (52% of 824), interferon β-1a (60% of 438), and glatiramer acetate (53% of 393). For patients taking either alendronate or teriparatide, discontinuation rates were higher in the basic, versus complete, plan (adjusted odds ratios, 2.02 and 3.56, respectively). Discontinuation did not significantly vary by plan type for etanercept, adalimumab, interferon β-1a, or glatiramer acetate.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who reached the coverage gap, discontinuation was more likely for patients taking osteoporosis (OP) medication. Not having a coverage gap was associated with improved persistence with OP treatment.

Analysis of the comparative effectiveness of 3 oral bisphosphonates in a large managed care organization: adherence, fracture rates, and all-cause cost

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread availability and use of oral bisphosphonates, fracture rates and associated medical costs are still high. Differences in fracture risk among these agents, if any, have not been quantified due to the lack of high-quality, head-to-head, randomized, controlled trials assessing this outcome. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials have shown that alendronate and risedronate reduce rates of both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, whereas only reduction in vertebral fractures has been found for ibandronate.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there were any differences among 3 oral bisphosphonates in adherence, total cost of care, and effectiveness in reducing fracture rates in a large managed care population.

METHODS

Administrative, longitudinal pharmacy and medical claims data were obtained from 14 geographically diverse health plans in the United States covering approximately 14 million members. Sampled members had at least 1 pharmacy claim for alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate during the intake period (January 1, 2005, through October 31, 2007). The date of the first pharmacy claim for osteoporosis medications within the intake period was the index date. Members were followed for either 12, 24, or 36 months, depending on length of continuous health plan eligibility. Medication possession ratio (MPR) was measured using a total days supply that was calculated by multiplying the total quantity dispensed by the suggested days supply per unit of dispensing based on manufacturer-recommended dosing. For members who switched bisphosphonate strengths or medications, the estimated days supply was summed for all osteoporosis medications during the follow-up, including overlapping days supply. Outcomes included (a) the first incident fracture and percentages of members with at least 1 fracture after 6 months post-index; (b) the number of days from index to the first incident fracture, measured as time to event in Cox proportional hazards regression analysis; and (c) total all-cause health care costs (health plan allowed amount including member cost share).

RESULTS

A total of 45,939 members were included (n = 24,909 alendronate, n = 13,834 risedronate, n = 7,196 ibandronate). In the 12-month analysis, MPRs were comparable (means = 0.57-0.58) for the 3 medications. After 24 months, MPRs had dropped for all medications, but those of both alendronate (mean = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.49-0.50) and risedronate (mean = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.49-0.51) were slightly higher than that of ibandronate (mean = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.46-0.48). At 36 months, again the MPRs had dropped for all 3 medications (means = 0.44-0.47) but were similar. There were no statistically significant differences among agents in the percentages of subjects with at least 1 fracture at 12, 24, or 36 months (36-month rates: alendronate 4.41%, risedronate 4.38%, ibandronate 6.28%, P = 0.102). The numbers of subjects with fracture(s) per month of follow-up were 0.0020 for alendronate, 0.0021 for risedronate, and 0.0022 for ibandronate (P = 0.087 overall). However, after adjusting for member characteristics, alendronate users had a 12% lower risk of experiencing any incident fracture than ibandronate users (hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78-0.99, P = 0.034) within the follow-up period. In the first 12 post-index months, ibandronate users had higher mean [SD] unadjusted total all-cause health care costs ($7,464 [$15,975]) compared with alendronate ($7,233 [$16,671]) and risedronate ($ 6,983 [$16,870], P less than 0.001 for both comparisons), differences of approximately $19 per month and $40 per month, respectively. The results of the unadjusted 24-month analysis were similar, but there were no significant cost differences at 36 months. Total cost differences for the 3 medication groups were nonsignificant at 12, 24, and 36 months after adjusting for member characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database in a large managed care population showed similar rates of adherence and total adjusted all-cause health care costs for alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate. Absolute unadjusted rates of fracture were small and did not significantly differ among agents, but after controlling for differences in member characteristics, the risk of fracture was 12% lower for alendronate users than for ibandronate users.

Cost-effectiveness of Denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Denosumab is an injectable drug that reduces the risk of fractures. The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab in a Swedish setting, also accounting for poor adherence to treatment. Denosumab is cost-effective, particularly for patients at high risk of fracture and low adherence to oral treatments.

INTRODUCTION

Denosumab is a novel biologic agent developed for the treatment of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures that has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures in a phase III trial. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab from a societal perspective compared with generic alendronate, branded risedronate, strontium ranelate, and no treatment in a Swedish setting.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab given for up to 5 years to a typical Swedish patient population (women aged 71 years, T-score ≤ -2.5 SD and a prevalence of morphometric vertebral fractures of 34%). The model included treatment persistence and residual effect after discontinuation assumed to be equal to the time on treatment. Persistence with the comparator treatments and with denosumab was derived from prescription data and a persistence study, respectively.

RESULTS

The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at €27,000, €12,000, €5,000, and €14,000, for denosumab compared with generic alendronate, risedronate, strontium ranelate, and no treatment, respectively. Sub-optimal persistence had the greatest impact in the comparison with generic alendronate, where the difference in drug cost was large.

CONCLUSION

Improving persistence with osteoporosis treatment impacts positively on cost-effectiveness with a larger number of fractures avoided in the population targeted for treatment. Denosumab is a cost-effective alternative to oral osteoporosis treatments, particularly for patients at high risk of fracture and low expected adherence to oral treatments.

Switching from one generic alendronate to another--a common procedure in Poland in the years 2001-2005

INTRODUCTION

In clinical ambulatory practice, patients often, rather than discontinuing treatment, change to another one. This study aims to assess the reasons why patients with osteoporosis switch from one alendronate to another with a different brand name.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 747 bisphosphonate-treated patients was performed (651 female, average age 67.3 ± 8.9 years, BMI 26.5 ± 4.0 kg/m(2)). The frequency and reasons for drug switching during the 19.4 ± 13.4 months of observation were analysed.

RESULTS

In 387 (51.8%) patients, treatment was not changed during the observation period, whereas in 360 (48.2%) patients, at least one drug switch occurred. Almost 40% of patients from that group (138 patients) switched from one alendronate to another alendronate with a different brand name. The most frequent reasons were: adverse event (36.9%), high price of the drug (23.2%) and request of patient (16.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of persistent bisphosphonate-treated patients switch treatment from one alendronate to another. The most frequent reasons for that kind of switching are the occurrence of an adverse event and the high cost of treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by treatment: the impact of medication adherence

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the impact of medication adherence on the cost-effectiveness of mass-screening by bone densitometry followed by alendronate therapy for women diagnosed with osteoporosis.

METHODS

A validated Markov microsimulation model with a Belgian health-care payer perspective and a lifetime horizon was used to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of the screening/treatment strategy compared with no intervention. Real-world adherence to alendronate therapy and full adherence over 5 years were both investigated. The real-world adherence scenario employed adherence data from published observational studies, and medication adherence was divided into persistence, compliance, and primary adherence. Uncertainty was investigated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

At 65 years of age, the costs per QALY gained because of the screening/treatment strategy versus no intervention are euro32,008 and euro16,918 in the real-world adherence and full adherence scenarios, respectively. The equivalent values are euro80,836 and euro40,462 at the age of 55 years, and they decrease to euro10,600 and euro1229 at the age of 75 years. Sensitivity analyses show that the presence of the upfront cost of case finding has a substantial role in the impact of medication adherence on cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that nonadherence with osteoporosis medications substantially increases the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of osteoporosis screening strategies. All aspects of medication adherence (i.e., compliance, persistence, and primary adherence) should therefore be reported and included in pharmacoeconomic analyses, and especially in the presence of the upfront cost of case finding (such as screening cost).

The impact of fewer hip fractures with risedronate versus alendronate in the first year of treatment: modeled German cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The Risedronate and Alendronate (REAL) cohort study provides unique comparative effectiveness data for real world bisphosphonate treatment of osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to generic alendronate in Germany applying the REAL effectiveness data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A validated Markov model of osteoporosis was populated with REAL effectiveness data and German epidemiological, cost, and utility data. To estimate the impact of therapy on hip fractures, costs, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs), the analysis included women>or=65 years, treated with risedronate or alendronate and followed for 4 additional years. Country-specific data included population mortality, fracture costs, and annual drug costs, using a German social insurance perspective. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. A differential hip fracture relative risk reduction of 43% was applied to risedronate vs. alendronate.

RESULTS

The model predicted that treatment with risedronate would result in fewer hip fractures and more QALYs at a reduced cost (savings of euro278 per treated woman) compared to treatment with generic alendronate. Sensitivity analysis assuming 2 years of treatment and equivalence of effect after 1 year show cost savings as well (euro106 per treated woman).

DISCUSSION

Whereas previous economic evaluations involving bisphosphonates have mainly relied on efficacy data from noncomparative clinical trials, this study's strength is in the use of comparative effectiveness data from one data source. The magnitude of the cost savings observed were sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding treatment duration, therapy discontinuation and cost of generic alendronate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on "real world" data the analysis supports the first line use of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporotic women in Germany.

Cost-effectiveness of using clinical risk factors with and without DXA for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

According to several guidelines, the assessment of postmenopausal fracture risk should be based on clinical risk factors (CRFs) and bone density. Because measurement of bone density by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is quite expensive, there has been increasing interest to estimate fracture risk by CRFs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening of CRFs with and without DXA compared with no screening in postmenopausal women in Germany.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis and a budget-impact analysis were performed from the perspective of the statutory health insurance. A Markov model simulated costs and benefits discounted at 3% over lifetime.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness of CRFs compared with no screening is euro4607, euro21,181, and euro10,171 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for 60-, 70-, and 80-year-old women, respectively. Cost-effectiveness of DXA plus CRFs compared with CRFs alone is euro20,235 for 60-year-old women. In women above the age of 70, DXA plus CRFs dominates CRFs alone. DXA plus CRFs results in annual costs of euro175 million, or 0.4% of the statutory health insurance's annual budget.

CONCLUSION

Funders should be careful in adopting a strategy based on CRFs alone instead of DXA plus CRFs. Only if DXA is not available, assessing CRFs only is an acceptable option in predicting a woman's risk of fracture.

Comparison of direct health care costs related to the pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis and to the management of osteoporotic fractures among compliant and noncompliant users of alendronate and risedronate: a population-based study

This population-based study aimed to compare direct health care costs related to the pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis and to the management of osteoporotic fractures among compliant and noncompliant users of alendronate and risedronate. During a 2-year follow-up period, compared to those with medication possession ratio (MPR) > or = 80%, women with MPR < 80% incurred significantly higher physician care costs and hospital care costs.

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare direct health care costs related to the treatment of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures among compliant and noncompliant users of alendronate and risedronate.

METHODS

A cohort of 15,027 women having initiated alendronate or risedronate was identified. MPR and direct health care costs (physician care, hospital care, drugs) were assessed during a 2-year period. Regression models were used to estimate mean predicted cost for compliant (MPR > or = 80%) and noncompliant (MPR < 80%) women.

RESULTS

Mean predicted physician care cost (in Canadian dollars) was $51 among women with MPR < 80% and $34 among those with MPR > or = 80%: mean difference $17, 95% confidence interval (CI) $2-22. Mean predicted hospital care cost was $568 among women with MPR < 80% and $379 among those with MPR > or = 80%: mean difference $189, 95% CI $56-320. Mean predicted drug cost was $439 among women with MPR < 80% and $1,068 among those with MPR > or = 80%: mean difference $-639, 95% CI $-649 to -629.

CONCLUSION

Compared to compliant women, noncompliant women incurred significantly higher physician care and hospital care costs. Due to lower drug costs, total direct health care costs were lower among noncompliant women.

Development and validation of a Markov microsimulation model for the economic evaluation of treatments in osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

Markov models are increasingly used in economic evaluations of treatments for osteoporosis. Most of the existing evaluations are cohort-based Markov models missing comprehensive memory management and versatility. In this article, we describe and validate an original Markov microsimulation model to accurately assess the cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

We developed a Markov microsimulation model with a lifetime horizon and a direct health-care cost perspective. The patient history was recorded and was used in calculations of transition probabilities, utilities, and costs. To test the internal consistency of the model, we carried out an example calculation for alendronate therapy. Then, external consistency was investigated by comparing absolute lifetime risk of fracture estimates with epidemiologic data.

RESULTS

For women at age 70 years, with a twofold increase in the fracture risk of the average population, the costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained for alendronate therapy versus no treatment were estimated at €9105 and €15,325, respectively, under full and realistic adherence assumptions. All the sensitivity analyses in terms of model parameters and modeling assumptions were coherent with expected conclusions and absolute lifetime risk of fracture estimates were within the range of previous estimates, which confirmed both internal and external consistency of the model.

CONCLUSION

Microsimulation models present some major advantages over cohort-based models, increasing the reliability of the results and being largely compatible with the existing state of the art, evidence-based literature. The developed model appears to be a valid model for use in economic evaluations in osteoporosis.

Isosorbide mononitrate versus alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness, safety, and affordability of isosorbide mononitrate with alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of 60 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 20 mg daily of isosorbide mononitrate or 70 mg weekly of alendronate for 12 months. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at baseline and after 12 months.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in BMD. Isosorbide mononitrate yielded a comparable effect to alendronate for BMD and T-score at the end of the follow-up period. For BMD and T score the mean differences between the 2 groups were -0.005 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.03) and 0.31 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.64), respectively. A 10.8% and 12.1% change in BMD after 12 months was seen for isosorbide mononitrate and alendronate, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Isosorbide mononitrate is comparable to alendronate. Nitric oxide donors may be an effective and affordable therapy to improve bone mineral density.

Therapies for treatment of osteoporosis in US women: cost-effectiveness and budget impact considerations

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments for women at high fracture risk and estimate the population-level impact of providing bisphosphonate therapy to all eligible high-risk US women.

STUDY DESIGN

Fractures, healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated over 10 years using a Markov model.

METHODS

No therapy, risedronate, alendronate, ibandronate, and teriperatide (PTH) were compared among 4 risk groups. Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of model results for 65-year-old women with low bone density and previous vertebral fracture.

RESULTS

Women treated with a bisphosphonate experienced fewer fractures and more QALYs compared with no therapy or PTH. Total costs were lowest for the untreated cohort, followed by risedronate, alendronate, ibandronate, and PTH in all risk groups except women aged 75 years with previous fracture. The incremental cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared with no therapy ranged from cost saving for the base case to $66,722 per QALY for women aged 65 years with no previous fracture. Ibandronate and PTH were dominated in all risk groups. (A dominated treatment has a higher cost and poorer outcome.) Treating all eligible women with a bisphosphonate would cost an estimated additional $5563 million (21% total increase) and would result in 390,049 fewer fractures (35% decrease). In the highest risk group, the additional cost of therapy was offset by other healthcare cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis treatment of high-risk women is cost-effective, with bisphosphonates providing the most benefit at lowest cost. For highest risk women, costs are offset by savings from fracture prevention.

Greater first year effectiveness drives favorable cost-effectiveness of brand risedronate versus generic or brand alendronate: modeled Canadian analysis

The RisedronatE and ALendronate (REAL) study provided a unique opportunity to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses based on effectiveness data from real-world clinical practice. Using a published osteoporosis model, the researchers found risedronate to be cost-effective compared to generic or brand alendronate for the treatment of Canadian postmenopausal osteoporosis in patients aged 65 years or older.

INTRODUCTION

The REAL study provides robust data on the real-world performance of risedronate and alendronate. The study used these data to assess the cost-effectiveness of brand risedronate versus generic or brand alendronate for treatment of Canadian postmenopausal osteoporosis patients aged 65 years or older.

METHODS

A previously published osteoporosis model was populated with Canadian cost and epidemiological data, and the estimated fracture risk was validated. Effectiveness data were derived from REAL and utility data from published sources. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was estimated from a Canadian public payer perspective, and comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The base case analysis found fewer fractures and more QALYs in the risedronate cohort, providing an incremental cost per QALY gained of $3,877 for risedronate compared to generic alendronate. The results were most sensitive to treatment duration and effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The REAL study provided a unique opportunity to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses based on effectiveness data taken from real-world clinical practice. The analysis supports the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to generic or brand alendronate and the use of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporotic Canadian women aged 65 years or older with a BMD T-score < or =-2.5.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed dose combination of alendronate and cholecalciferol in the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in the United Kingdom and The Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a fixed dose combination of alendronate 70 mg and cholecalciferol 2800 IU (alendronate/vitamin D3; Fosavance) versus no treatment, alendronate with dietary vitamin D supplements and ibandronate in the treatment of osteoporosis in the UK and Netherlands.

METHODS

A patient simulation model was developed. One-year cycles included health states related to hip, vertebral, wrist and proximal humerus fractures, as well as death due to hip fractures and other causes. Effect of treatment was extracted from alendronate and ibandronate clinical trials. Direct costs and utilities were derived from other literature. Analyses were performed for women with a history of vertebral fractures and osteoporosis aged 50, 60, 70 and 80 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to estimate the uncertainty of outcomes.

RESULTS

In the UK, alendronate/vitamin D3 was cost-effective compared to no treatment in women 70 years and older with osteoporosis ( pound17 439 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained) and women 60 years and older with a history of vertebral fractures ( pound29 283 per QALY gained). For women 80 years of age alendronate/vitamin D3 was cost-saving combined with QALY gains. Alendronate/vitamin D3 was cost-saving relative to alendronate with dietary supplements. Relative to ibandronate, alendronate/vitamin D3 was cost-effective in women 50 years ( pound19 095 per QALY gained) and economically dominant in women 60 years or older. Comparable results were observed for the Netherlands.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the underlying assumptions and data used, this economic modelling study showed that alendronate/vitamin D3 is cost-effective in women 70 years or older with osteoporosis and in women 60 years or older with a history of vertebral fractures in the UK and Netherlands. Alendronate/vitamin D3 is economically dominant over ibandronate in women with a history of vertebral fractures aged 60 and over and cost-saving relative to alendronate with dietary supplements.

Cost effectiveness of ultrasound and bone densitometry for osteoporosis screening in post-menopausal women

BACKGROUND

According to a new German guideline, decisions about bisphosphonate treatment for post-menopausal women should be based on 10-year fracture risk, and bone density should be measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Recently, there has been growing interest in quantitative ultrasound (QUS) as a less expensive screening alternative.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost effectiveness of osteoporosis screening with QUS as a pre-test for DXA and treatment with alendronate compared with (i) immediate access to DXA and (ii) no screening in women of the general population aged 50-90 years in Germany.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis and a budget impact analysis were performed from the perspective of the statutory health insurance (SHI). A Markov model with a 1-year cycle length was used to simulate costs and benefits (QALYs), discounted at 3% per annum, over a lifetime. The number of women correctly diagnosed by QUS and DXA as being above a 10-year risk of > or =30% was estimated for different age groups (50-60, 60-70, 70-80 and 80-90 years, respectively). The robustness of the results was tested by a probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the cost effectiveness of QUS plus DXA was found to be Euro 3529, Euro 9983, Euro 4382 and Euro 1987 per QALY for 50-, 60-, 70- and 80-year-old women, respectively (year 2006 values). This screening strategy results in annual costs of Euro 96 million or 0.07% of the SHI's annual budget. The cost effectiveness of DXA alone compared with DXA plus QUS is Euro 5331, Euro 60, 804, Euro 14, 943 and Euro 3654 per QALY for 50-, 60-, 70- and 80-year-old women, respectively. DXA alone results in a higher number of QALYs in all age groups. The results were robust in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Compared with no screening, the cost effectiveness of QUS and DXA in sequence is very favourable in all age groups. However, direct access to DXA is also a cost-effective option, as it increases the number of QALYs at an acceptable cost compared with pre-testing by QUS (except for women aged 60-70 years). Therefore, QUS as a pre-test for DXA can be clearly recommended only in women aged 60-70 years. For the other age groups, the cost effectiveness of QUS as a pre-test depends on the global budget constraint and the accessibility of DXA.

The cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the management of osteoporosis

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK has recently issued health economic appraisals for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fracture that are more restrictive than previous guidelines for the management of osteoporosis despite a marked reduction of the cost of intervention. The aim of the present study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of the bisphosphonate, alendronate for the prevention and treatment of fractures associated with osteoporosis. A second aim was to investigate reasons for any disparities in cost-effectiveness between our findings and the NICE appraisals. We compared the effects of alendronate 70 mg weekly by mouth for 5 years with no treatment in postmenopausal women with clinical risk factors for fracture and computed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using a lifetime simulation model based on Markov cohort methodology. A sensitivity analysis examined other common interventions. Using a threshold of pound sterling 30,000 and pound sterling 20,000 per quality of life-year (QALY) gained to determine cost-effectiveness, alendronate was cost-effective for the primary prevention of fracture in women with osteoporosis irrespective of age as was treatment of women with a prior fragility fracture irrespective of BMD. Cost-effective scenarios were also found in women with strong risk factors for fracture with a bone mineral density value above the threshold for osteoporosis. The results were robust over reasonable assumptions in sensitivity analysis. We conclude that alendronate is a cost-effective agent for the prevention and treatment of fractures associated with osteoporosis. These findings, suitable for informing practice guidance, contrast with recent appraisals from NICE.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

OBJECTIVES

To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (subject to licensing) for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies that met the review's entry criteria were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analyses provided that they reported fracture incidence in terms of the number of patients suffering fractures. Meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model. A model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions. The model calculated the number of fractures that occurred and provided the costs associated with osteoporotic fractures, and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In addition, the conditions of breast cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) were modelled, as some interventions have been shown to affect the risk of these conditions.

RESULTS

Ninety randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. They related to the five interventions (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide) and to five comparators (calcium, calcium plus vitamin D, calcitriol, hormone replacement therapy and exercise), as well as placebo or no treatment. All five interventions have been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in women with severe osteoporosis with adequate calcium intakes. However, none of these drugs has been demonstrated, by direct comparison, to be significantly more effective than either each other or the other active interventions reviewed in this report. The intervention costs of treating all osteoporotic women, for a period of 5 years, were in the region of pound 900-1500 million for alendronate, etidronate, risedronate and raloxifene. The cost per QALY ratios fell dramatically with age. Assuming the risks of a woman with severe osteoporosis at the threshold of osteoporosis, no treatment had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000 at 50 years of age. At 60 years of age, the cost per QALY of raloxifene was pound 26,000 assuming no impact on hip fractures, and pound 31,000 assuming an adverse effect. However, these results are driven by the effect on breast cancer and the assumptions made regarding this disease state. No other intervention had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000. When analyses were conducted assuming that the fracture risk is doubled at each site, alendronate and risedronate had cost per QALY ratios below pound 30,000 at all ages. For women at the threshold of osteoporosis, without a prior fracture and aged 70 years, the cost per QALY of the three bisphosphonates ranged from pound 34,000 to pound 41,000. Raloxifene had a cost per QALY of pound 23,000, assuming no effect on hip fracture, given assumptions regarding breast cancer. At 80 years of age, the cost per QALY of alendronate and risedronate was below pound 20,000. This was true for etidronate when incorporating observational data, but the value rose to pound 69,000 when only RCT data were used. No other intervention had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000. It was assumed that doubling the risk of fracture for women without a prior fracture would give results similar to patients at the threshold of osteoporosis with a prior fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the five interventions, only raloxifene appeared to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women unselected for low bone mineral density (BMD). However, as the full data have not been made public, there is some uncertainty regarding this result. None of the five interventions has been shown to reduce the risk of non-vertebral fracture in women unselected for low BMD. All of the proposed interventions provided gains in QALYs compared with no treatment in women with sufficient calcium and vitamin D intakes. The size of the QALY gain for each intervention was strongly related to the age of the patient. The estimated costs varied widely for the interventions. These net costs were markedly different by age, with some interventions becoming cost-saving at higher age ranges in patients with a prior fracture. Areas for future research include: the evidence base for the efficacy of fracture prevention in the very elderly, reanalysis of raloxifene using a dedicated breast cancer and CHD model, and more trials considering the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide.

Simulation-based cost-utility analysis of population screening-based alendronate use in Switzerland

A simulation model adopting a health system perspective showed population-based screening with DXA, followed by alendronate treatment of persons with osteoporosis, or with anamnestic fracture and osteopenia, to be cost-effective in Swiss postmenopausal women from age 70, but not in men.

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a population-based screen-and-treat strategy for osteoporosis (DXA followed by alendronate treatment if osteoporotic, or osteopenic in the presence of fracture), compared to no intervention, from the perspective of the Swiss health care system.

METHODS

A published Markov model assessed by first-order Monte Carlo simulation was refined to reflect the diagnostic process and treatment effects. Women and men entered the model at age 50. Main screening ages were 65, 75, and 85 years. Age at bone densitometry was flexible for persons fracturing before the main screening age. Realistic assumptions were made with respect to persistence with intended 5 years of alendronate treatment. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

In women, costs per QALY were Swiss francs (CHF) 71,000, CHF 35,000, and CHF 28,000 for the main screening ages of 65, 75, and 85 years. The threshold of CHF 50,000 per QALY was reached between main screening ages 65 and 75 years. Population-based screening was not cost-effective in men.

CONCLUSION

Population-based DXA screening, followed by alendronate treatment in the presence of osteoporosis, or of fracture and osteopenia, is a cost-effective option in Swiss postmenopausal women after age 70.

Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry followed by treatment of osteoporosis in older men

CONTEXT

Osteoporotic fractures are common among elderly men.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate among older men the cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry followed by 5 years of oral bisphosphonate therapy to prevent fractures for those found to have osteoporosis (femoral neck T score < or =-2.5), compared with no intervention.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION

Computer Markov microsimulation model using a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon. Simulations were performed for hypothetical cohorts of white men aged 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, with or without prior clinical fracture. Data sources for model parameters included the Rochester Epidemiology Project for fracture costs and population-based age-specific fracture rates; the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study and published meta-analyses for the associations among prior fractures, bone density, and incident fractures; and published studies of fracture disutility.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the densitometry and follow-up treatment strategy compared with no intervention, calculated from lifetime costs and accumulated QALYs for each strategy.

RESULTS

Lifetime costs per QALY gained for the densitometry and follow-up treatment strategy were less than $50,000 for men aged 65 years or older with a prior clinical fracture and for men aged 80 years or older without a prior fracture. These results were most sensitive to oral bisphosphonate cost and fracture reduction efficacy, the strength of association between bone mineral density and fractures, fracture rates and disutility, and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Bone densitometry followed by bisphosphonate therapy for those with osteoporosis may be cost-effective for men aged 65 years or older with a self-reported prior clinical fracture and for men aged 80 to 85 years with no prior fracture. This strategy may also be cost-effective for men as young as 70 years without a prior clinical fracture if oral bisphosphonate costs are less than $500 per year or if the societal willingness to pay per QALY gained is $100,000.

Cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the treatment of postmenopausal women in 9 European countries--an economic evaluation based on the fracture intervention trial

Treatment with alendronate (Fosamax) has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of fragility fractures. Cost-effectiveness of treatment was assessed in nine European countries in a Markov model and was generally found to be cost effective in women with a previous spine fracture.

INTRODUCTION

Treatment with alendronate (Fosamax) reduces the risk of osteoporotic fractures at the spine, hip and wrist in women with and without prevalent vertebral fracture. Cost-effectiveness estimates in one country may not be applicable elsewhere due to differences in fracture risks, costs and drug prices. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating postmenopausal women with alendronate in nine European countries, comprising Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model was populated with data for the nine European populations. Effect of treatment was taken from the Fracture Intervention Trial, which recruited women with low BMD alone or with a prior vertebral fracture.

RESULTS

The cost per QALY gained of treating postmenopausal women with prior vertebral fractures ranged in the base case from "cost saving" in the Scandinavian countries to <euro>15,000 in Italy. Corresponding estimates for women without prior vertebral fractures ranged from "cost saving" to <euro>40,000.

CONCLUSIONS

In relation to thresholds generally used, the analysis suggests that alendronate is very cost effective in the treatment of women with previous vertebral fracture, and in women without previous vertebral fracture, cost-effectiveness depends on the country setting, discount rates, and chosen monetary thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding the cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene, alendronate and conservative care in this population.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation model to assess the incremental cost and effectiveness of raloxifene and alendronate relative to conservative care. We assumed a societal perspective and a lifetime time horizon. We examined clinical scenarios involving postmenopausal women from 55 to 75 years of age with bone mineral density T-scores ranging from -1.0 to -2.4. Modeled health events included vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, invasive breast cancer, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Raloxifene and alendronate were assumed to reduce the incidence of vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures; raloxifene was assumed to decrease the incidence of breast cancer and increase the incidence of VTEs. Cost-effectiveness is reported in $/QALYs gained.

RESULTS

For women 55 to 60 years of age with a T-score of -1.8, raloxifene cost approximately $50,000/QALY gained relative to conservative care. Raloxifene was less cost-effective for women 65 and older. At all ages, alendronate was both more expensive and less effective than raloxifene. In most clinical scenarios, raloxifene conferred a greater benefit (in QALYs) from prevention of invasive breast cancer than from fracture prevention. Results were most sensitive to the population's underlying risk of fracture and breast cancer, assumed efficacy and costs of treatment, and the discount rate.

CONCLUSION

For 55 and 60 year old women with osteopenia, treatment with raloxifene compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective.

Potential for bone turnover markers to cost-effectively identify and select post-menopausal osteopenic women at high risk of fracture for bisphosphonate therapy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Over half of all fractures among post-menopausal women occur in those who do not have osteoporosis by bone density criteria. Measurement of bone turnover may cost-effectively identify a subset of women with T-score >-2.5 for whom anti-resorptive drug therapy is cost-effective.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, we estimated the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for five years of oral bisphosphonate compared to no drug therapy for osteopenic post-menopausal women aged 60 to 80 years with a high (top quartile) or low (bottom 3 quartiles) level of a bone turnover marker.

RESULTS

For women with high bone turnover, the cost per QALY gained with alendronate compared to no drug therapy among women aged 70 years with T-scores of -2.0 or -1.5 were $58,000 and $80,000 (U.S. 2004 dollars), respectively. If bisphosphonates therapy also reduced the risk of non-vertebral fractures by 20% among osteopenic women with high bone turnover, then the costs per QALY gained were $34,000 and $50,000 for women age 70 with high bone turnover and T-scores of -2.0 and -1.5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Measurement of bone turnover markers has the potential to identify a subset of post-menopausal women without osteoporosis by bone density criteria for whom bisphosphonate therapy to prevent fracture is cost-effective. The size of that subset highly depends on the assumed efficacy of bisphosphonates for fracture risk reduction among women with both a T-score >-2.5 and high bone turnover and the cost of bisphosphonate treatment.

Brand versus generic alendronate: gastrointestinal effects measured by resource utilization

BACKGROUND

Adverse reactions related to the upper gastrointestinal tract (UGIT) that are associated with generic alendronate formulations may differ from those associated with the brand drug.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that adverse UGIT effects of alendronate formulations may differ between generic and brand products.

METHODS

We conducted a database health resource utilization analysis of UGIT outcomes in patients who started treatment with generic or brand alendronate formulations during 2001-2005. We included 6962 patients who were treated continuously for 3 months with 1 of 4 alendronate formulations: brand 10 mg/day (Merck, Sharpe & Dohme, n = 1418), generic A 10 mg/day (Teva, Israel, n = 650), generic B 10 mg/day (Unipharm, Israel, n = 628), and brand 70 mg/wk (n = 4266). In these patients, who had neither filled a prescription for alendronate nor had any gastrointestinal problems in the year preceding the study, we compared incidence rates of new use of gastric medications (H2-blockers, proton-pump inhibitors, or antacids), gastroenterology visits, endoscopies, and hospital admissions.

RESULTS

Incident rate ratios (IRR) for treatment discontinuation were higher with both daily generic products (IRR 1.3; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Adherence (medication possession ratio [MPR] >80%) was better with brand 10 mg/day (IRR 1.19; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.27). All comparisons were adjusted for use of concurrent corticosteroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and potassium supplements. Hospitalization rates (2.7-3.2%) were similar in all groups. New use of gastric medications (3.4-4.9%) was lower with brand 10 mg/day (IRR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95). Rates of UGIT endoscopy (n = 49) in patients receiving 10 mg were 0.6% (brand), 1.1% (generic A), and 1.6% (generic B), with generic B higher (IRR 2.88; 95% CI 1.14 to 7.29) in the entire cohort, but not among new users (n = 273) of gastric drugs (IRR 2.46; 95% CI 0.55 to 11.05). Endoscopic findings were normal in 22 patients, hiatal hernia with no mucosal lesion was present in 10 patients, and there was mild-to-moderate esophagitis or gastritis in 17 patients; there were no significant differences among the formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to indicate major differences in UGIT adverse effects related to use of daily generic, as compared with brand, alendronates.

The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Teriparatide is a promising new agent for the treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide-based strategies compared with alendronate sodium for the first-line treatment of high-risk osteoporotic women. We developed a microsimulation with a societal perspective. Key data sources include the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, and the Fracture Prevention Trial. We evaluated postmenopausal white women with low bone density and prevalent vertebral fracture. The interventions were usual care (UC) (calcium or vitamin D supplementation) compared with 3 strategies: 5 years of alendronate therapy, 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and 2 years of teriparatide therapy followed by 5 years of alendronate therapy (sequential teriparatide/alendronate). The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the cost of alendronate treatment was 11,600 dollars per QALY compared with UC. The cost of sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was 156,500 dollars per QALY compared with alendronate. Teriparatide treatment alone was more expensive and produced a smaller increase in QALYs than alendronate. For sensitivity analysis, teriparatide alone was less cost-effective than alendronate even if its efficacy lasted 15 years after treatment cessation. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was less cost-effective than alendronate even if fractures were eliminated during the alendronate phase, although its cost-effectiveness was less than 50,000 dollars per QALY if the price of teriparatide decreased 60%, if used in elderly women with T scores of -4.0 or less, or if 6 months of teriparatide therapy had comparable efficacy to 2 years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Alendronate compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective. Therapy with teriparatide alone is more expensive and produces a smaller increase in QALYs than therapy with alendronate. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy appear expensive but could become more cost-effective with reductions in teriparatide price, with restriction to use in exceptionally high-risk women, or if short courses of treatment have comparable efficacy to that observed in clinical trials.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments for women with osteoporosis in Canada

BACKGROUND

During the years following menopause, estrogen levels decline leading to accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures.

METHODS

Using a Markov model and decision analytic techniques, the long-term costs and outcomes of five treatment and secondary prevention strategies for osteoporosis were compared: 'no intervention', alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, and raloxifene. The base case analysis examined postmenopausal (65 year old) osteoporotic women without prior fracture. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to incorporate the impact of parameter uncertainty, and deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) was used to compare alternative patient populations and modeling assumptions. Life years and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were used as measures of effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, risedronate was dominated by etidronate and alendronate. Alendronate and etidronate were projected to have similar costs and QALYs, and the efficiency frontier was represented by 'no intervention', etidronate, alendronate, and raloxifene (Can$32 571, Can$38 623 and Can$114 070 per QALY respectively). Alternative assumptions of raloxifene's impact on CHD and breast cancer, alternative discount rates and alternative patient risk factors (e.g., starting age of therapy, CHD risk, and prior fracture risk) had significant impacts on the overall cost-effectiveness results for both the bisphosphonates and raloxifene.

DISCUSSION

Using conventionally quoted benchmarks and compared to no therapy, alendronate, etidronate, and raloxifene would all be considered cost-effective alternatives for treating women with osteoporosis. Potential limitations of this study include the usual caveats and cautions associated with long-term projection models and the fact that not all inputs into the model are Canadian data sources.

Potential cost-effective use of spine radiographs to detect vertebral deformity and select osteopenic post-menopausal women for amino-bisphosphonate therapy

Prevalent vertebral deformities are predictive of future clinical fractures independent of bone density. We used a Markov model with eight health states to estimate from the societal perspective the cost-effectiveness of using spine radiographs to identify postmenopausal women age 60 or older with one or more vertebral deformities and then treat them with anti-resorptive drug therapy to prevent fractures. We compared three strategies: 5 years of amino-bisphosphonate (alendronate) therapy for all, 5 years of alendronate therapy for only those with prevalent a radiographic vertebral deformity or no initial alendronate treatment. Lifetime direct medical and indirect costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were tracked. For women with one or more prevalent vertebral deformities, the costs per QALY gained ranged from 5,084 dollars (for an 80 year old with a T-score of -2.4) to 61,192 dollars (for a 60 year old with a T-score of -1.0). For women without prevalent vertebral deformity, the costs per QALY gained ranged from 41,897 dollars (for a 60 year old with a T-score of -2.4) to 166,219 dollars (for an 80 year old with a T-score of -1.0). These results were modestly sensitive to reasonable changes in fracture rates, disutility, discount rates and assumptions about the accuracy of spinal radiographs for detecting vertebral deformity. Assuming a societal willingness to pay per QALY gained of 50,000 dollars, the strategy of performing spine radiographs in post-menopausal osteopenic women with T-scores at or below -1.5 and treating those with 1 or more prevalent vertebral deformities is likely to be cost-effective. However, further research on the accuracy of vertebral deformity ascertainment from routine clinical radiographs and on the efficacy of amino-bisphosphonate drugs for reducing the risk of non-vertebral fractures in osteopenic women is needed to define more precisely the subset of osteopenic post-menopausal women in whom use of spinal radiographs is most cost-effective.

Universal Bone Densitometry Screening Combined with Alendronate Therapy for Those Diagnosed with Osteoporosis Is Highly Cost-Effective for Elderly Women

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of universal bone densitometry in women aged 65 and older combined with alendronate treatment for those diagnosed with osteoporosis (femoral neck T-score < or = -2.5).

DESIGN

A Markov model with a lifetime time horizon and eight health states (no fracture, distal forearm fracture, radiographic (but clinically inapparent) vertebral fracture, clinical vertebral fracture, hip fracture, hip and vertebral fracture, and other fractures), using the societal perspective.

SETTING

Women living independently and those in nursing homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Caucasian women aged 65, 75, 85, or 95.

INTERVENTION

Bone densitometry of the hip, with 5 years of alendronate therapy for those found to have osteoporosis versus no intervention (densitometry or drug therapy).

MEASUREMENTS

Lifetime accumulated quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

The cost per QALY gained for the screen-and-treat strategy was 43,000 dollars per QALY gained for 65-year-old women and 5,600 dollars per QALY gained for 75-year-old women. For 85- and 95-year-old women, the screen-and-treat strategy was cost saving. Sensitivity analyses showed that the screen-and-treat strategy was cost-effective even under assumptions of reduced adherence to drug therapy, reduced fracture reduction benefit from alendronate therapy, or reduced QALYs saved by preventing fracture.

CONCLUSION

Universal bone densitometry combined with alendronate therapy for those found to have osteoporosis is highly cost-effective for women aged 65 and older and may be cost saving for ambulatory women aged 85 and older (whether independently living or residing in nursing homes).