Skip header and navigation

1 records – page 1 of 1.

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

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature120144
Source
J Med Econ. 2012;15 Suppl 1:3-14
Publication Type
Article
Date
2012
Author
D. Chau
D L Becker
M E Coombes
G. Ioannidis
J D Adachi
R. Goeree
Author Affiliation
Amgen Canada Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Source
J Med Econ. 2012;15 Suppl 1:3-14
Date
2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Alendronate - economics - therapeutic use
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized - economics - therapeutic use
Bone Density Conservation Agents - economics - therapeutic use
Cohort Studies
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Etidronic Acid - analogs & derivatives - economics - therapeutic use
Female
Humans
Markov Chains
Middle Aged
Models, Econometric
Ontario
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - drug therapy
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Abstract
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PubMed ID
23035625 View in PubMed
Less detail