Skip header and navigation

4 records – page 1 of 1.

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

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature168355
Source
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Jul;22(7):1425-36
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jul-2006
Author
Ron Goeree
Gord Blackhouse
Jonathan Adachi
Author Affiliation
Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH), McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. goereer@mcmaster.ca
Source
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Jul;22(7):1425-36
Date
Jul-2006
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Alendronate - economics - therapeutic use
Bone Density Conservation Agents - economics - therapeutic use
Canada
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Decision Support Techniques
Etidronic Acid - analogs & derivatives - economics - therapeutic use
Female
Humans
Markov Chains
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - drug therapy - economics
Raloxifene - economics - therapeutic use
Abstract
During the years following menopause, estrogen levels decline leading to accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures.
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.
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.
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.
PubMed ID
16834841 View in PubMed
Less detail

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

Cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis in the US.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature108612
Source
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013 Oct;11(5):485-97
Publication Type
Article
Date
Oct-2013
Author
Anju Parthan
Morgan Kruse
Nicole Yurgin
Joice Huang
Hema N Viswanathan
Douglas Taylor
Author Affiliation
OptumInsight, Cambridge, MA, USA, anju.parthan@optum.com.
Source
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013 Oct;11(5):485-97
Date
Oct-2013
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
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Diphosphonates - economics - therapeutic use
Drug Costs
Etidronic Acid - analogs & derivatives - economics - therapeutic use
Female
Health Care Costs - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Insurance, Health, Reimbursement - economics - statistics & numerical data
Markov Chains
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - economics - prevention & control
Sweden
Thiophenes - economics - therapeutic use
United States
Abstract
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.
The cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a US third-party payer perspective was evaluated.
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.
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.
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.
PubMed ID
23868102 View in PubMed
Less detail

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

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature160303
Source
Osteoporos Int. 2008 May;19(5):687-97
Publication Type
Article
Date
May-2008
Author
D T Grima
A. Papaioannou
M F Thompson
M K Pasquale
J D Adachi
Author Affiliation
Cornerstone Research Group Inc., Burlington, ON, L7L 5Y6, Canada. dgrima@cornerstone-research.com
Source
Osteoporos Int. 2008 May;19(5):687-97
Date
May-2008
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Alendronate - economics - therapeutic use
Bone Density - drug effects
Bone Density Conservation Agents - economics - therapeutic use
Canada
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Etidronic Acid - analogs & derivatives - economics - therapeutic use
Female
Hip Fractures - drug therapy - economics
Humans
Models, Biological
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal - drug therapy - economics
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Severity of Illness Index
Abstract
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
PubMed ID
18008100 View in PubMed
Less detail