Economic evaluation of zoledronic acid for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors are used as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (BC) and are associated with accelerated bone loss. Zoledronic acid (ZOL) prevents aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with BC. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of ZOL for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with BC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project lifetime incidence of fractures, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and costs as a function of bone mineral density (BMD) for women with early-stage BC receiving letrozole alone or with ZOL. Two strategies of ZOL therapy were compared with no treatment: starting ZOL treatment only when BMD levels decreased ('delayed ZOL') and starting ZOL simultaneously with letrozole therapy ('upfront ZOL'). RESULTS: Delayed ZOL therapy was estimated to cost 16,069 pounds per QALY, when compared with not administering bisphosphonates for AIBL prevention. The corresponding cost per QALY gained for upfront ZOL versus no treatment was estimated at 21,973 pounds. The cost-effectiveness ratio for upfront versus delayed therapy was estimated at 24,868 pounds per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Both delayed and upfront therapy with ZOL for the prevention of AIBL and fractures in BC patients in the UK appear to result in highly acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of long-acting risperidone in Portugal: a modeling exercise.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses have shown that long-acting risperidone (LAR) is cost-effective in several Western countries. In Portugal, however, the costs of key services are lower. Therefore, available evidence in other countries may have limited relevance. OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs and effects of LAR versus a conventional depot and a short-acting oral atypical antipsychotic over a 5-year period in Portugal. METHODS: An existing discrete event model was adapted to reflect the Portuguese healthcare setting, based on expert opinion, clinical, epidemiological, and cost data. The model compares three scenarios. In scenario 1, patients start with a conventional depot; in scenario 2, with LAR; and in scenario 3, with oral risperidone. The model simulates individual patient histories while taking into account patient characteristics such as risk to society and side-effects. Subsequently, the model simulates patient histories in terms of outpatient appointments, psychotic episodes, treatment, compliance, symptom scores, lack of ability to take care presenting an actual risk, and treatment setting. Outcomes were number of psychotic episodes, cumulative symptom score and direct medical costs. Univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: Compared to a conventional depot and an oral atypical, LAR was estimated to save approximately euro 3603 and euro 4682 per patient (respectively) and avoid 0.44 and 0.59 relapses per patient in 5 years. Sensitivity analyses showed that the outcome of dominance was only sensitive to estimates about unit costs of hospital/institutionalization, potential risk, and to the reduction in symptoms by use of atypicals. CONCLUSION: Based on this modeling exercise, it could be expected that LAR may be a cost-effective treatment with limited budget impact in Portugal. However, further studies are required to test the generalizability of the results of the present modeling study to the larger population of Portugal.