The selective estrogen receptor modulators in breast cancer prevention.

BACKGROUNDS: Persistently increased blood levels of estrogens are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are a class of compounds that act on the estrogen receptor (ER). METHODS: Several clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of its prophylactic administration. Incidence of invasive ER-positive breast cancer was reduced by SERMs treatment, especially for those women with high risk of developing breast cancer. In this study, we reviewed the clinical application of SERMs in breast cancer prevention. RESULTS: To date, four prospective randomized clinical trials had been performed to test the efficacy of tamoxifen for this purpose. Concerning on the benefit and cost of tamoxifen, various studies from different countries demonstrated that chemoprevention with tamoxifen seemed to be cost-effective for women with a high risk of invasive breast cancer. Based above, tamoxifen was approved for breast cancer prevention by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1998. Raloxifene was also approved for postmenopausal women in 2007 for breast cancer prevention which reduces the risk of invasive breast cancer with a lower risk of unwanted stimulation of endometrium. Thus, raloxifene is considered to have a better clinical possesses as prophylactic agent. Several other agents, such as arzoxifene and lasofoxifene, are currently being investigated in clinic. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network had published guidelines on breast cancer chemoprevention by SERMs. However, use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for primary breast cancer prevention was still low. CONCLUSION: A broader educational effort is needed to alert women and primary care physicians that SERMs are available to reduce breast cancer risk.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene and raloxifene in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Europe, using the FRAX algorithm.

UNLABELLED: Bazedoxifene and raloxifene were evaluated in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from health economic perspective in Europe. Based on a computer-based algorithm calculating efficacy of the treatments, bazedoxifene appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared to raloxifene, particularly in patients at high fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene and raloxifene in eight European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. METHODS: The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, which is a computer-based algorithm to calculate fracture probability using clinical risk factors alone or with bone mineral density, was incorporated in a Markov Tunnel model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene 20 or 40 mg vs. raloxifene 60 mg in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. The efficacy of bazedoxifene and raloxifene for vertebral and non-vertebral fractures was measured as a function of the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture. The model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) from a healthcare perspective, given the willingness to pay 30,000. RESULTS: In postmenopausal osteoporotic women, bazedoxifene was a cost saving strategy compared to raloxifene in the countries studied. The median NMB of bazedoxifene compared to raloxifene increased monotonically with the 10-year fracture probability. In general, the median NMB became greater than 0 in women with 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture between 5 and 10% or above. The impact on results by varying the assumptions in the model was examined in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Bazedoxifene appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared to raloxifene for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Europe, particularly in patients at high fracture risk.

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.

Evidence to inform decision makers in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment strategies for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess value for money of providing systematic screening for osteoporosis among postmenopausal women and medical treatments for those diagnosed with osteoporosis as evidence-based decision making for the revision of the National List of Essential Medicines. METHODS: Decision analytic models were constructed, using a societal perspective, to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from systematic screening using the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry alone compared with no screening. Alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, and nasal calcitonin were economically evaluated to determine a treatment of choice for the prevention of osteoporosis-related fractures. Most input parameters were obtained from literature reviews, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses, if available. The service costs and related household expenses were based on the Thai setting. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to incorporate the impact of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool and sequential dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry provided better value for money for osteoporosis screening among young age groups (<60 years old). Although there was no significant difference in cost per QALY for older age groups, alendronate provided the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio while nasal calcitonin presented the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. It was shown that providing medication for a secondary prevention yielded a much higher cost per QALY gained compared with providing medication for a primary prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Given the benchmark set at 100,000 Thai baht per QALY gained, providing systematic screening and treatment for osteoporosis was cost-ineffective in the Thai setting.

A comparison between bisphosphonates and other treatments for osteoporosis.

Since their development 30 years ago, bisphosphonates are now one of the standard therapy in the management of osteoporosis. Improvements in terms of anti-resorptive potency have leaded to new molecules available either orally or intravenously, from weekly to yearly administration. Overall tolerance of bisphosphonates is good with regards to the risk of mandibular necrosis, not comparable with those observed in cancer treatment, and with no causal link yet established in osteoporotic patients. Compliance remains poor and should be improved by a better education of the patients about their treatment. Other treatments like teriparatide, raloxifene or strontium ranelate are now also available and give more therapeutic options but also more questions on the best molecule to choose for each patient. There is currently no valid basis for distinguishing in a formal and objective manner the different new-generation bisphosphonates, in terms of efficacy against either vertebral, peripheral or hip fractures. In a same way, comparison between bisphosphonates and the other treatments available for osteoporosis is hard in absence of proper randomised controlled study. This review gives an overview of the recent data on the efficacity and tolerance of bisphosphonates in the different forms of osteoporosis and compares them to the other treatments currently available.

The impact of fewer hip fractures with risedronate versus alendronate in the first year of treatment: modeled German cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Risedronate and Alendronate (REAL) cohort study provides unique comparative effectiveness data for real world bisphosphonate treatment of osteoporosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to generic alendronate in Germany applying the REAL effectiveness data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A validated Markov model of osteoporosis was populated with REAL effectiveness data and German epidemiological, cost, and utility data. To estimate the impact of therapy on hip fractures, costs, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs), the analysis included women>or=65 years, treated with risedronate or alendronate and followed for 4 additional years. Country-specific data included population mortality, fracture costs, and annual drug costs, using a German social insurance perspective. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. A differential hip fracture relative risk reduction of 43% was applied to risedronate vs. alendronate. RESULTS: The model predicted that treatment with risedronate would result in fewer hip fractures and more QALYs at a reduced cost (savings of euro278 per treated woman) compared to treatment with generic alendronate. Sensitivity analysis assuming 2 years of treatment and equivalence of effect after 1 year show cost savings as well (euro106 per treated woman). DISCUSSION: Whereas previous economic evaluations involving bisphosphonates have mainly relied on efficacy data from noncomparative clinical trials, this study's strength is in the use of comparative effectiveness data from one data source. The magnitude of the cost savings observed were sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding treatment duration, therapy discontinuation and cost of generic alendronate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on "real world" data the analysis supports the first line use of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporotic women in Germany.

Budget impact analysis of chemoprevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen and raloxifene among high-risk women in Japan.

'Cost saving' was suggested in our recent economic evaluation of chemoprevention of breast cancer targeting women at high risk in Japan. However, this budget impact analysis reveals that the introduction of chemoprevention appears to be not budget saving for approximately 20 years, whereas the level of budget impact seems affordable.

[Economics of medicament therapies for osteoporosis].

For treatment of osteoporosis, medical costs range within 10% among administrations of alfacalcidol, raloxifene and weekly alendronate, because costs of the drugs are shared about 50% of medical costs. Medical costs of the patients suffered from mild lumbago, severe lumbago and femoral neck fracture are compared between the patients with and without the medicament therapies. Preventions of lumbago and fracture by the drugs reduce maximally 16.5% of medical costs. Economics of various therapies to prevent femoral neck fracture in whole Japan show that hip protector gains 73.1 billion yen and medicament therapies lose minimally 826.9 billion yen annually.

Impact of economic, regulatory, and patent policies on innovation in cancer chemoprevention.

Chemoprevention agents are an emerging new scientific area that holds out the promise of delaying or avoiding a number of common cancers. These new agents face significant scientific, regulatory, and economic barriers, however, which have limited investment in their research and development (R&D). These barriers include above-average clinical trial scales, lengthy time frames between discovery and Food and Drug Administration approval, liability risks (because they are given to healthy individuals), and a growing funding gap for early-stage candidates. The longer time frames and risks associated with chemoprevention also cause exclusivity time on core patents to be limited or subject to significant uncertainties. We conclude that chemoprevention uniquely challenges the structure of incentives embodied in the economic, regulatory, and patent policies for the biopharmaceutical industry. Many of these policy issues are illustrated by the recently Food and Drug Administration-approved preventive agents Gardasil and raloxifene. Our recommendations to increase R&D investment in chemoprevention agents include (a) increased data exclusivity times on new biological and chemical drugs to compensate for longer gestation periods and increasing R&D costs; chemoprevention is at the far end of the distribution in this regard; (b) policies such as early-stage research grants and clinical development tax credits targeted specifically to chemoprevention agents (these are policies that have been very successful in increasing R&D investment for orphan drugs); and (c) a no-fault liability insurance program like that currently in place for children's vaccines.

The search for good compliance: economic aspects of a conveyed combination pharmaco-therapy, exemplified by an osteoporosis therapy.

The discussion of adequate compliance in health care often refers to a lack of information between patients and physicians. In our setting, we show that contract arrangements as well as the distribution of information are important for an adequate alignment of the interest of patients and physicians. The analysis emphasises the benefit of organised pharmaco-therapy enhancing the concomitant compliance. Therefore, the results can work as a proxy for the need of good economic-based approaches discussing compliance in chronic diseases.

Cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding the cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene, alendronate and conservative care in this population. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to assess the incremental cost and effectiveness of raloxifene and alendronate relative to conservative care. We assumed a societal perspective and a lifetime time horizon. We examined clinical scenarios involving postmenopausal women from 55 to 75 years of age with bone mineral density T-scores ranging from -1.0 to -2.4. Modeled health events included vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, invasive breast cancer, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Raloxifene and alendronate were assumed to reduce the incidence of vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures; raloxifene was assumed to decrease the incidence of breast cancer and increase the incidence of VTEs. Cost-effectiveness is reported in $/QALYs gained. RESULTS: For women 55 to 60 years of age with a T-score of -1.8, raloxifene cost approximately $50,000/QALY gained relative to conservative care. Raloxifene was less cost-effective for women 65 and older. At all ages, alendronate was both more expensive and less effective than raloxifene. In most clinical scenarios, raloxifene conferred a greater benefit (in QALYs) from prevention of invasive breast cancer than from fracture prevention. Results were most sensitive to the population's underlying risk of fracture and breast cancer, assumed efficacy and costs of treatment, and the discount rate. CONCLUSION: For 55 and 60 year old women with osteopenia, treatment with raloxifene compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective.

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

BACKGROUND: During the years following menopause, estrogen levels decline leading to accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: 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.

Cost-effectiveness strategies to treat osteoporosis in elderly women.

BACKGROUND: Comparing the cost-effectiveness of various antiosteoporotic drugs has not been defined. METHODS: We determined the cost-effectiveness of calcitonin, raloxifene, bisphosphates and PTH in a base-case cohort of women aged 65 or older with osteoporosis. After bone densitometry, women were stratified into groups of treatment or no treatment. Our outcome goal was a value of dollars 100,000 or less per quality-adjusted life years (QALY). A sensitivity analysis varied nonvertebral fracture reduction and compliance between the two most effective strategies to test various cost per QALY thresholds. RESULTS: Bisphosphonates displayed the most favorable incremental cost saving and prevented more fractures in our base-case analysis. In a sensitivity analysis, virtually all values of bisphosphonates were under dollars 100,000 per QALY and parathyroid hormone (PTH) was between dollars 100,000 and dollars 200,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Only bisphosphonates are cost-effective for fracture prevention in osteoporotic women aged 65 or older and this economic advantage is also maintained in subsets who have a lower relative risk of future fracture.

[Osteoporosis treatment in Portugal: trends and geographical variation]. / Tratamento da osteoporose em Portugal: tendência e variação geográfica.

INTRODUCTION: The drugs available in the Portuguese market, for the treatment of osteoporosis, have different mechanisms of action, efficacy, indications, safety profile, and cost, which may influence prescription and acquisition by patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of drugs for osteoporosis treatment (estimated by sales), between 1998 and 2004, and the geographical variation in the drug utilization, in 2004. METHODS: Data was obtained from IMS Health for the sales of drugs used in the ambulatory treatment of osteoporosis, in the whole country, from 1998 to 2004, and by region, in 2004. For each group (bisphosphonates, raloxifene, calcitonins, Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and calcium and vitamin D), we computed the sum of the amount of packages and the value of the sales in each year, regardless of the strength or the package size. For bisphosphonates, raloxifene and calcitonins, we computed the DDD (Defined Daily Dose) sold in Portugal. All consumption data are presented by women aged 45 to 74 years. National data was used to describe the trends in sales, from 1998 to 2004, and regional data was used to map the 2004 consumptions. RESULTS: The expenses with drugs used in osteoporosis increased 60% from 1998 to 2004. The bisphosphonates sales increased more than five times, and in 2004 this group was responsible for 60% of the national market of drugs for osteoporosis treatment. Raloxifene represented approximately 10% of the sales in 2004. The consumption of calcitonins decreased nearly 70% in the observation period. The use of HRT increased 30% to 40% until 2001/2002, and decreased just about the same from there on. Geographical differences were observed in the sales of osteoporosis drugs in 2004, the amplitude of variation ranging from two (bisphosphonates, calcium and vitamin D, HRT) to three times (raloxifene, calcitonins) across regions. The lowest consumptions were observed in Beja and Bragança, and the highest in Aveiro. Raloxifene is used mainly in the Northwest of the country, and HRT in the sea side regions. CONCLUSIONS: In Portugal, the trends in the consumption of drugs used for osteoporosis treatment, as well as the relative weight of each pharmacological group, follow a similar pattern to the observed in other countries. The differences in consumption across the years and regions may reflect a variation in the frequency of disease or in the proportion of subjects being treated, but the magnitude of the variation suggests that there are unmet needs in diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in our country, and that social and economic factors may contribute to the regional differences observed.

Benefit-risk assessment of raloxifene in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Raloxifene, a nonsteroidal benzothiophene, is a second-generation selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that is an antiresorptive agent. Raloxifene is a non-hormonal agent that binds to the estrogen receptor and results in estrogen agonist effects on bone and the cardiovascular system and estrogen antagonist effects on endometrial and breast tissue. Raloxifene has diverse pharmacodynamic properties due to its differential interactions with the estrogen receptor and tissue selectivity. Raloxifene was the first SERM to be approved for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. In this review, we conducted a systematic search of the literature for trials that evaluated the following outcomes: bone density, fractures, quality of life, cardiovascular outcomes, safety and adverse events. Raloxifene at the approved dosage of 60 mg/day increased lumbar spine bone density by 2.5% relative to control after 2 years of therapy. A large fracture prevention trial confirmed that treatment with raloxifene 60 mg/day for 3 years decreased the relative risk of incident vertebral fractures by 30-50% in women with prevalent fractures or osteoporosis. Extraskeletal effects of raloxifene include a reduction in total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Assessment of the safety profile revealed that raloxifene was not associated with endometrial hyperplasia and that there was a 72% reduction in the incidence of invasive breast cancer in raloxifene-treated postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Adverse events associated with raloxifene included an increase in the absolute risk of venous thromboembolism and an increase in the risk of hot flashes and leg cramps. In comparison to other osteoporosis therapies, raloxifene has a lesser impact on bone mineral density, a similar effect on the occurrence of vertebral fractures, but no effect on the frequency of non-vertebral fractures. Raloxifene can be recommended for the prevention of vertebral fractures in women with osteopenia/osteoporosis who are not at high risk of non-vertebral fractures and who do not have a past history of venous thromboembolism.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (subject to licensing) for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: Studies that met the review's entry criteria were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analyses provided that they reported fracture incidence in terms of the number of patients suffering fractures. Meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model. A model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions. The model calculated the number of fractures that occurred and provided the costs associated with osteoporotic fractures, and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In addition, the conditions of breast cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) were modelled, as some interventions have been shown to affect the risk of these conditions. RESULTS: Ninety randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. They related to the five interventions (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide) and to five comparators (calcium, calcium plus vitamin D, calcitriol, hormone replacement therapy and exercise), as well as placebo or no treatment. All five interventions have been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in women with severe osteoporosis with adequate calcium intakes. However, none of these drugs has been demonstrated, by direct comparison, to be significantly more effective than either each other or the other active interventions reviewed in this report. The intervention costs of treating all osteoporotic women, for a period of 5 years, were in the region of pound 900-1500 million for alendronate, etidronate, risedronate and raloxifene. The cost per QALY ratios fell dramatically with age. Assuming the risks of a woman with severe osteoporosis at the threshold of osteoporosis, no treatment had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000 at 50 years of age. At 60 years of age, the cost per QALY of raloxifene was pound 26,000 assuming no impact on hip fractures, and pound 31,000 assuming an adverse effect. However, these results are driven by the effect on breast cancer and the assumptions made regarding this disease state. No other intervention had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000. When analyses were conducted assuming that the fracture risk is doubled at each site, alendronate and risedronate had cost per QALY ratios below pound 30,000 at all ages. For women at the threshold of osteoporosis, without a prior fracture and aged 70 years, the cost per QALY of the three bisphosphonates ranged from pound 34,000 to pound 41,000. Raloxifene had a cost per QALY of pound 23,000, assuming no effect on hip fracture, given assumptions regarding breast cancer. At 80 years of age, the cost per QALY of alendronate and risedronate was below pound 20,000. This was true for etidronate when incorporating observational data, but the value rose to pound 69,000 when only RCT data were used. No other intervention had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000. It was assumed that doubling the risk of fracture for women without a prior fracture would give results similar to patients at the threshold of osteoporosis with a prior fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Of the five interventions, only raloxifene appeared to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women unselected for low bone mineral density (BMD). However, as the full data have not been made public, there is some uncertainty regarding this result. None of the five interventions has been shown to reduce the risk of non-vertebral fracture in women unselected for low BMD. All of the proposed interventions provided gains in QALYs compared with no treatment in women with sufficient calcium and vitamin D intakes. The size of the QALY gain for each intervention was strongly related to the age of the patient. The estimated costs varied widely for the interventions. These net costs were markedly different by age, with some interventions becoming cost-saving at higher age ranges in patients with a prior fracture. Areas for future research include: the evidence base for the efficacy of fracture prevention in the very elderly, reanalysis of raloxifene using a dedicated breast cancer and CHD model, and more trials considering the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide.

Cost-effectiveness of raloxifene in the UK: an economic evaluation based on the MORE study.

Raloxifene treatment has been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fractures and breast cancer in postmenopausal women. The long-term economic implications of treatment with raloxifene have not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating postmenopausal women in the UK with raloxifene. A previously developed computer simulation model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporotic treatments with extra skeletal benefits. The model was populated with epidemiological data and cost data relevant for a UK female population. Data on the effect of treatment were taken from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene (MORE) study, which recruited women with low bone mineral density or with a prior vertebral fracture. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and life years gained as primary outcome measures. The cost per QALY gained of treating postmenopausal women without prior vertebral fractures was 18,000 pounds, 23,000 pounds , 18,000 pounds and 21,000 pounds at 50, 60, 70 and 80 years of age. Corresponding estimates for women with prior vertebral fractures were 10,000 pounds, 24,000 pounds, 18,000 pounds and 20,000 pounds. In relation to threshold values that are recommended in the UK, the analysis suggests that raloxifene is cost-effective in the treatment of postmenopausal women at an increased risk of vertebral fractures.

Health-economic comparison of three recommended drugs for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is a large and growing disease with significant health consequences. Based on an evaluation of clinical evidence, the German osteology umbrella organization DVO (Dachverband Osteologie deutschsprachiger wissenschaftlicher Fachgesellschaften) published guidelines in March 2003 for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. For prevention of fractures in women with postmenopausal and senile osteoporosis, these guidelines recommend three treatment options as first-line therapy: risedronate, alendronate and raloxifene. No evidence is currently available for the reduction of hip fractures by raloxifene. Only risedronate and alendronate, therefore, are recommended for prevention of hip fractures. Information on the cost-effectiveness of preventing and treating osteoporosis may support decision makers in more efficient allocation of resources. Accordingly, the objective of this study is the comparative assessment of the cost-effectiveness of risedronate, alendronate and raloxifene for patient populations in Germany at high risk of osteoporotic fracture due to low bone mineral density (BMD) (i.e., T-score < -2.5) and resulting from a history of at least one previous vertebral fracture, as compared to osteoporotic patients with no treatment. Target variables for the economic comparison are costs per hip fracture avoided and costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Hip fractures are the most costly and best-documented complication of osteoporosis. A cost-effectiveness analysis was therefore conducted, using as criteria for evaluating intervention the incremental cost per hip fracture avoided and the cost per QALY gained. We used a fracture-incidence-based Markov model of osteoporosis, with analysis of patients' transition across outcome states over time (e.g., fracture, healthy, dead). Base-case analysis was conducted on a cohort of 1,000 women aged 70 with low spine BMD and prevalent vertebral fracture, over 3 years of treatment with risedronate, alendronate or raloxifene, and with application of a 10-year analytic time horizon. Model inputs included hip and vertebral fracture incidence rates; relative risk of fracture given low BMD and prevalent vertebral fracture, fracture cost, treatment prices/day (risedronate: 35 mg, 1.76 euro; alendronate: 70 mg, 1.82 euro; raloxifene: 60 mg, 1.82 euro); health utility; and efficacy in terms of relative-risk reduction of fracture of the hip (60% risedronate; 51% alendronate; not significant raloxifene) and vertebrae (49% risedronate; 47% alendronate; 30% raloxifene). A 5% discount rate was applied to cost and outcomes. In the base case, treatment with risedronate reduces costs from the social insurance perspective with respect to both endpoints: i.e., costs per averted hip fracture and QALY. Over the 3-year treatment period and 10-year observation, furthermore, risedronate proved superior to alendronate and raloxifene (i.e., risedronate was less expensive and more effective). From the perspective of statutory health insurance, the cost per averted hip fracture is 37,348 euro for risedronate and 48,349 euro for alendronate (costs for raloxifene were not calculated due to a nonsignificant effect on prevention of hip fractures); and cost per QALY gained is 32,092 euro for risedronate, in comparison to patients in Germany with no therapy (alendronate 41,302 euro; raloxifene 1,247,119 euro). This cost-effectiveness analysis gives evidence that bisphosphonates are cost effective. Under consideration of current prices and the published clinical evidence, risedronate dominates the comparison of DVO-recommended drugs.