A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Given the limited availability of healthcare resources and the recent introduction of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, the interest in the cost effectiveness of drugs in postmenopausal osteoporosis remains and even increases. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify all recent economic evaluations on drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis, to critically appraise the reporting quality, and to summarize the results. METHODS: A literature search using Medline, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry was undertaken to identify original articles published between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013. Studies that assessed cost effectiveness of drugs in postmenopausal osteoporosis were included. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of these articles. RESULTS: Of 1,794 articles identified, 39 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They were conducted in 14 different countries and nine active interventions were assessed. When compared with no treatment, active osteoporotic drugs were generally cost effective in postmenopausal women aged over 60-65 years with low bone mass, especially those with prior vertebral fractures. Key drivers of cost effectiveness included individual fracture risk, medication adherence, selected comparators and country-specific analyses. Quality of reporting varied between studies with an average score of 17.9 out of 24 (range 7-21.5). CONCLUSION: This review found a substantial number of published cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs in osteoporosis in the last 6 years. Results and critical appraisal of these articles can help decision makers when prioritizing health interventions and can inform the development of future economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness of vitamin D and calcium supplementation in the treatment of elderly women and men with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: The supplementation with vitamin D and calcium has been recommended for elderly, specifically those with increased risk of fractures older than 65 years. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of vitamin D and calcium supplementation in elderly women and men with osteoporosis and therefore to assess if this recommendation is justified in terms of cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A validated model for economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of vitamin D/calcium supplementation compared with no treatment. The model was populated with cost and epidemiological data from a Belgian health-care perspective. Analyses were conducted in women and men with a diagnosis of osteoporosis (i.e. bone mineral density T-score ≤-2.5). A literature search was conducted to describe the efficacy of vitamin D and calcium in terms of fracture risk reduction. RESULTS: The cost per QALY gained of vitamin D/calcium supplementation was estimated at €40 578 and €23 477 in women and men aged 60 years, respectively. These values decreased to €7912 and €10 250 at the age of 70 years and vitamin D and calcium supplementation was cost-saving at the age of 80 years, meaning that treatment cost was less than the costs of treating osteoporotic fractures of the no-treatment group. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that vitamin D and calcium supplementation is cost-effective for women and men with osteoporosis aged over 60 years. From an economic perspective, vitamin D and calcium should therefore be administrated in these populations including those also taking other osteoporotic treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

Denosumab is a novel biological agent for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with increased risk of fractures. With limited healthcare resources, economic evaluations are increasingly being used by decision-makers to optimize healthcare resource allocation. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab has been evaluated in various studies, and a systematic literature study was conducted up to April 2012 to identify all published research articles and research abstracts presented at various congresses. This article provides a systematic review of four articles and eight abstracts reporting on the cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis. In most economic evaluations, denosumab has been considered as a cost-effective treatment compared with first-line and second-line options (including generic alendronate) in the treatment of women with high risk of fractures.

Cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene compared with raloxifene in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

Bazedoxifene is a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. In addition to the therapeutic value of a new agent, evaluation of the cost-effectiveness compared with relevant alternative treatment(s) is an important consideration to facilitate healthcare decision making. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene compared with raloxifene for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost-effectiveness of treatment for 3 years with bazedoxifene was compared with raloxifene using an updated version of a previously validated Markov microsimulation model. Analyses were conducted from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective and, the base-case population was women (aged 70 years) with bone mineral density T-score ≤ -2.5. The effects of bazedoxifene and raloxifene on fracture risk were derived from the 3-year results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled study, including postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost-effectiveness analysis based on efficacy data from the overall clinical trial indicated that bazedoxifene and raloxifene were equally cost-effective. When the results were examined based on the subgroup analysis of women at higher risk of fractures, bazedoxifene was dominant (lower cost for higher effectiveness) compared with raloxifene in most of the simulations. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results, which were largely independent of starting age of treatment, fracture risk, cost, and disutility. In addition, when the cost of raloxifene was reduced by one-half or when incorporating the raloxifene effects on reducing breast cancer, bazedoxifene remained cost-effective, at a threshold of €35,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained, in 85% and 68% of the simulations, respectively. Under the assumption of improved antifracture efficacy of bazedoxifene over raloxifene in women with high risk of fractures, this study suggests that bazedoxifene can be considered cost-effective, and even dominant, when compared with raloxifene in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

Evaluation of proposals of Belgian Social Security Institute for reimbursement of bone densitometry tests. Toward a cost-effective strategy for osteoporosis screening?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Belgian Social Security Institute (hereafter INAMI) proposes a list of conditions to be considered as a prerequisite for reimbursement of Bone Mineral Density (BMD) measurements. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the proposed criteria for identifying osteoporosis, and to gauge how useful they are for more rational application of densitometry tests. METHODS: 3748 Caucasian women aged at least 50 years old were recruited consecutively from an outpatient university center, from the database of which all relevant data corresponding to the INAMI list of clinical factors, as well as patients' age, weight and height, were collected. BMD measurements using dual X-ray absorptiometry were reported at the spine and hip regions. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated through measures of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Additionally, from ROC analysis, benchmark values for age and body mass index were identified and then, used alone and in combination with the INAMI test, were applied to define various screening strategies. For each of them, associated costs per osteoporotic patient detected were estimated. Cost estimates refer only to the costs associated with the densitometric procedure from the perspective of the reimbursement health authorities. RESULTS: Applying INAMI criteria for detecting osteoporosis at any of the considered sites yielded sensitivity of 68.9%, specificity of 50.7%, PPV of 42.9% and NPV of 57.3%. Comparison of incremental costs per patient of the different strategies revealed that, with 67.1 Euros, the option of opening BMD coverage to women on the basis of the INAMI conditions would be more cost-effective than mass screening (90.1 Euros) or applying the age criterion alone (70.2 Euros). However, the BMI condition seems to act as a better indicator of risk than the INAMI criteria in those meeting the age condition (35.4 Euros). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the INAMI proposal turns out to be quite unsatisfactory, and did not adequately cover the population at risk of osteoporosis. From a resource allocation perspective, the best strategy by far would be to recommend using concomitantly INAMI, age and BMI-selective criteria. Some adaptations could enhance the usefulness of the INAMI proposals as a selective approach for BMD referral and reimbursement.