Cost-effectiveness Of Bisphosphonates Research Articles

Pharmacoeconomics of Bisphosphonates for Skeletal-Related Event Prevention in Metastatic Non-Breast Solid Tumours

Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs; i.e. spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, radiation or surgery to the bone, and hypercalcaemia) in patients with metastatic cancer. A number of analyses have been conducted to assess the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer, but few in other solid tumours. This is a review of cost-effectiveness analyses in patients with non-breast solid tumours and bone metastases. A literature search was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness analyses reporting the cost per QALY gained of bisphosphonates in patients with metastatic bone disease secondary to non-breast solid tumours. Four analyses met inclusion criteria. These included two in prostate cancer (one of which used a global perspective but expressed results in $US, and the other reported from a multiple country perspective: France, Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands). The remaining analyses were in lung cancer (in the UK, France, Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands), and renal cell carcinoma (in the UK, France and Germany). In each analysis, the cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid versus placebo was analysed. Zoledronic acid was found to be cost effective in all European countries across all three indications but not in the sole global prostate cancer analysis. Across countries and indications, assumptions regarding patient survival, drug cost and baseline utility (i.e. patient utility with metastatic disease but without an SRE) were the most robust drivers of modelled estimates. Assumptions of SRE-related costs were most often the second strongest cost driver. Further review indicated that particular attention should be paid to the inclusion or exclusion of nonsignificant survival benefits, whether health state utilities were elicited from community or patient samples or author assumptions, delineation between symptomatic and asymptomatic SREs, and the methods with which SRE disutility was modelled over time. While the field of cost-effectiveness analysis in solid tumours other than breast cancer is still evolving, outcomes will likely continue to be driven by drug cost and assumptions regarding treatment benefits. Although considerations such as adverse events and administration costs are important, they were not found to influence cost-effectiveness estimates greatly. As zoledronic acid will lose patent protection in 2013 and subsequently be greatly reduced in price, it is likely that the field of cost effectiveness will change with regard to SRE-limiting agents. Meanwhile, research should be conducted to improve our understanding of the impact on quality of life and medical costs of preventing SREs.

A Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates in the Treatment of Post-Menopausal Osteoporosis in Switzerland

The economic burden associated with osteoporosis is considerable. As such, cost-effectiveness analyses are important contributors to the diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making process. The aim of this study was to review the cost effectiveness of treating post-menopausal osteoporosis with bisphosphonates and identify the key factors that influence the cost effectiveness of such treatment in the Swiss setting. A systematic search of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) was conducted to identify published literature on the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in post-menopausal osteoporosis in the Swiss setting. Outcomes were compared with similar studies in Western European countries. Three cost-effectiveness studies of bisphosphonates in this patient population were identified; all were from a healthcare payer perspective. Outcomes showed that, relative to no treatment, treatment with oral bisphosphonates was predicted to be cost saving for most women aged ≥70 years with osteoporosis or at least one risk factor for fracture, and cost effective for women aged ≥75 years without prior fracture when used as a component of a population-based screen-and-treat programme. Results were most sensitive to changes in fracture risk, cost of fractures, cost of treatment, nursing home admissions and adherence with treatment. Swiss results were generally comparable to those in other European settings. Assuming similar clinical efficacy, lowering treatment cost (through the use of price-reduced brand-name or generic drugs) and/or improving adherence should both contribute to further improving the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis. Published evidence indicates that bisphosphonates are estimated to be similarly cost effective or cost saving in most treatment scenarios of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Switzerland and in neighbouring European countries.

Cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonate therapies for women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: implications of improved persistence with less frequently administered oral bisphosphonates

ABSTRACTObjective: Studies have shown that weekly bisphosphonate dosing results in improved persistence compared to daily dosing among patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis, yet more than 50% of patients discontinue therapy within a year. An oral, less frequent administration bisphosphonate provides an opportunity to improve persistence, a parameter not well modeled in previous cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoporosis therapies.Research design and methods: We developed a Markov model to estimate the effect of improved persistence on the cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates among postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis (vertebral fracture and bone mineral density T-score ≤ –2.5) and an average age of 78 years. Fracture risks, clinical efficacy, mortality, resource use, costs, and utilities were obtained from the published literature. Persistence rates were derived primarily from a published clinical trial. Approximately 50% greater persistence with a monthly versus a weekly therapy was assumed on the basis of the PERSIST study, a 6-month, randomized, head-to-head prospective study that investigated treatment persistence in postmenopausal osteoporotic women on monthly versus weekly bisphosphonate therapy. Persistence was extrapolated to a maximum of 5 years. Following discontinuation, treatment benefit declined linearly and proportionally to the duration of active treatment.Results: Based on model estimates, more fractures were avoided (versus no treatment) with monthly bisphosphonate (58.1 per 1000 treated women) than with weekly bisphosphonates (33.8 per 1000 treated women), resulting in lower fracture care costs per woman ($7317 and $7548, respectively). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was lower with a monthly bisphosphonate ($13 749) than with weekly bisphosphonates ($16 657) when compared to no treatment. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of a monthly bisphosphonate was $9476 when compared to a weekly bisphosphonate.Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, improvement in persistence with a less frequently administered oral bisphosphonate therapy could augment the fracture benefit and thereby improve cost-effectiveness. Further studies are required to refine the estimates of cost-effectiveness in order to address limited availability of adherence and fracture risk data.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates in Postmenopausal Women Based on Individual Long-Term Fracture Risks

Objective Cost-effectiveness analyses are routinely based on data from group averages, restricting its generalizibility to those with below- or above-average risk. A pharmaco-economic model that used individualized risks for fractures was developed in order to take into account patient heterogeneity. Methods Data were obtained from The Health Improvement Network research database of general practitioners, comprising a UK general population of women aged more than 50 years (N = 330,000). Mortality and hip, vertebral, and other osteoporotic fracture risks for each individual were estimated by age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and other clinical risk factors. Estimates on costs, EuroQol (EQ-5D) utilities, and treatment efficacy were obtained from a UK national report (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence) and outcomes were simulated over a 10-year period. Results It was found that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was lower in elderly women and inwomen with fracture history. There was a large variability in the cost-effectiveness with baseline fracture risk and with clinical risk factors. Patients with low BMI (<20) had considerable better cost-effectiveness than patients with high BMI (≥26). Using a cost-acceptability ratio of £30k per QALY gained, bisphosphonate treatment became cost-effective for patients with a 5-year risk of 9.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.0–10.5%) for osteoporotic fractures and of 2.1% (95% CI 1.5–2.7%) for hip fractures. Including bone mineral density in the risk assessment, the cost per QALY gained was £35k in women at age 60 with a fracture history and a T-score of −2.5 (at age 80, this was £3k). Conclusion A pharmacoeconomic model based on individual long-term risks of fracture improves the selection of postmenopausal women for cost-effective treatment with bisphosphonates.

Individual fracture risk and the cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates in patients using oral glucocorticoids

There are few data on the cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates with oral glucocorticoids (GCs). An individual patient-based pharmaco-economic model was developed. Data were obtained from a cohort of oral GC users aged 40+ (n = 190 000) in the UK General Practice Research Database. Individualized fracture and mortality risks were calculated specific for age, sex, daily and cumulative GC dose, indication and other clinical risk factors. UK costs of medication and direct costs of fracture were obtained from National Institute for Clinical Excellence and used to estimate costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and fracture prevented for bisphosphonates in patients treated for 5 yrs with GCs. With the use of 5 mg GCs daily, the cost per one QALY gained with bisphosphonates was 41k UK pounds (95% confidence intervals 22-72k) in women aged <60 [men 40k pounds (29-54k)], 17k pounds (13-24k) in women aged 60-79 [men 43k pounds (31-60k)], 5k pounds(3-6k) in women aged 80+ [men 35k pounds (25-46k)]. With 15 mg GC, these figures were 17k pounds (14-21k), 13k pounds (10-16k) and 15k pounds (9-26k) in women and 22k pounds (17-26k), 34 pounds (23-53k) and 33k pounds (27-42k) in men, respectively. When stratifying by overall fracture risk and life expectancy at the start of GC therapy, cost per QALY increased with decreasing life expectancy. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis had comparatively better cost-effectiveness, given higher fracture risk and better life expectancy. The cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates varied substantially. Bisphosphonates can be considered cost-effective in patients with higher fracture risks, such as elderly patients (with a life expectancy over 5 yrs), and younger patients with a fracture history, low body mass index, rheumatoid arthritis or using high GC doses.

Cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the management of breast cancer patients with bone metastases

Background: Bisphosphonates are recommended to prevent skeletal related events (SREs) in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM). However, their clinical and economic profiles vary from one agent to the other.Materials and methods: Using modeling techniques, we simulated from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) the cost and quality adjusted survival (QALY) associated with five commonly-used bisphosphonates or no therapy in this patient population. The simulation followed patients into several health states (i.e. alive or dead, experiencing an SRE or no SRE, and receiving first or second line therapy). Drugs costs, infusion costs, SREs costs, and utility values were estimated from published sources. Utilities were applied to time with and without SREs to capture the impact on quality of life.Results: Compared to no therapy, all bisphosphonates are either cost saving or highly cost-effective (with a cost per QALY ≤ £6126). Within this evaluation, zoledronic acid was more effective and less expensive than all other options.Conclusions: Based on our model, the use of bisphosphonates in breast cancer patients with bone metastases should lead to improved patient outcomes and cost savings to the NHS and possibly other similar entities.

Cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the management of breast cancer patients with bone metastases

Background: Bisphosphonates are recommended to prevent skeletal related events (SREs) in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM). However, their clinical and economic profiles vary from one agent to the other. Materials and methods: Using modeling techniques, we simulated from the perspective of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) the cost and quality adjusted survival (QALY) associated with five commonly-used bisphosphonates or no therapy in this patient population. The simulation followed patients into several health states (i.e. alive or dead, experiencing an SRE or no SRE, and receiving first or second line therapy). Drugs costs, infusion costs, SREs costs, and utility values were estimated from published sources. Utilities were applied to time with and without SREs to capture the impact on quality of life. Results: Compared to no therapy, all bisphosphonates are either cost saving or highly cost-effective (with a cost per QALY £ £6126). Within this evaluation, zoledronic acid was more effective and less expensive than all other options. Conclusions: Based on our model, the use of bisphosphonates in breast cancer patients with bone metastases should lead to improved patient outcomes and cost savings to the NHS and possibly other similar entities.

Maintaining bone health in patients with prostate cancer

Loss of bone mineral density with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer is well recognised, with significant loss of bone mineral density (BMD) occurring within 12 months of starting therapy. With ADT, annual loss of BMD is about 2%-8% per year at the lumbar spine and 1.8%-6.5% at the hip; the loss appears to continue indefinitely while treatment continues, and there is no recovery after therapy is ceased. 19.4% of men surviving at least 5 years after diagnosis of prostate cancer have a fracture if treated with ADT compared with 12.6% of men not receiving ADT; this is equivalent to one additional fracture for every 28 men treated with ADT. Vitamin D deficiency exacerbates the development of osteoporosis, so vitamin D status should be evaluated before commencing ADT in men with prostate cancer. Treatment with bisphosphonates (zoledronate, pamidronate and alendronate) in men treated with ADT have been shown to prevent bone loss in prospective studies and to increase BMD in one randomised controlled trial; bisphosphonates have not been shown to prevent fractures in men with prostate cancer. Further prospective trials are required to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates in men with prostate cancer who require treatment with ADT. All doctors need to take an active role in monitoring bone health in patients with prostate cancer requiring ADT.