OP129 A Cost-Utility Analysis Of Denosumab (Prolia®) For Treating Osteoporosis In Postmenopausal Women: A Swiss Healthcare Payer Perspective

Abstract

IntroductionOsteoporosis is characterized by decreased bone mass and density, increasing skeletal fragility, and the risk of fragility fracture. Fragility fractures are associated with a high economic burden. Denosumab (Prolia®) is a pharmacological therapy used to treat osteoporosis and reduce the risk of fragility fracture. This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of denosumab, compared with other pharmacological therapies (oral bisphosphonates, intravenous [IV] ibandronate, zoledronate, raloxifene, and bazedoxifene) and no treatment, for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.MethodsA discrete event simulation model was developed using a lifetime time horizon. A Swiss healthcare payer perspective was adopted. Time-to-fracture distributions were derived from Swiss-specific Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) probabilities. Reductions in the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures due to treatment were informed by a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness frontier analysis was utilized. Pairwise incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between denosumab and each comparator were also estimated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify key drivers and explore the overall certainty of findings.ResultsAt a hypothetical willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CHF100,000 (EUR101,630), IV ibandronate was the most cost-effective therapy in women aged 60 years who had a very high risk of fracture, and in women aged 70 or 80 years of any risk level. In women aged 60 years with a lower risk level, zoledronate was the most cost-effective option. Nevertheless, ICERs from pairwise comparisons between denosumab and some comparators (no treatment, bazedoxifene, raloxifene, and/or zoledronate depending on the cohort’s age and risk profile) were below the hypothetical WTP threshold. Higher intervention costs, smaller reductions in the risk of hip fracture, and shorter duration of residual benefit associated with denosumab contributed to the high ICER values seen in pairwise comparisons with oral bisphosphonates (as a class) and IV ibandronate.ConclusionsThe present evaluation supported the cost effectiveness of denosumab against some, but not all, comparators. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted cautiously in light of uncertainty in the true effect of treatments on fracture risk.