Economic evaluation of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with bone metastases.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xie J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10437654 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Economic evaluation of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with bone metastases.
Xie Jipan J Namjoshi Madhav M Wu Eric Q EQ Parikh Kejal K Diener Melissa M Yu Andrew P AP Guo Amy A Culver Kenneth W KW
Journal of managed care pharmacy : JMCP 20111001 8
<h4>Background</h4>Bone metastases are common in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. In a study of autopsies of patients with prostate cancer, 65%-75% had bone metastases. Bone metastases place a substantial economic burden on payers with estimated total annual costs of $1.9 billion in the United States. Skeletal-related events (SREs), including pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery to bone, and radiation to bone, affect approximately 50% of patients with bone meta ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This article reviews the problem of bone disease in prostate cancer and the evolving role of the novel agent denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand, in suppressing bone resorption and offering bone protection in this disease. Prostate cancer frequently metastasizes to bone, and additionally its treatment with androgen deprivation leads to accelerated bone loss resulting in clinically relevant skeletal complications associated with disabling symptoms. Among the bone-targeting therapeutic strategies investigated for the prevention of bone complications, the potent bisphosphonate zoledronic acid has been the most widely used agent for bone protection in the past decade. Denosumab is the first among a new class of osteoclast-targeting agents to show superior efficacy in several clinical scenarios in both prostate and breast cancer, as well as in osteoporosis, but the focus of this review will be on its role in prostate cancer. The safety and efficacy of denosumab versus zoledronic acid was established in a randomized trial, demonstrating a delay in skeletal-related events in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. This study led to the approval of denosumab in the US. The chief risks of denosumab were hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw. Denosumab was also approved for fracture risk reduction in patients on androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Although denosumab extended bone metastasis-free survival in a Phase III trial in men with castration-resistant nonmetastatic prostate cancer to a statistically significant degree, a Food and Drug Administration committee found that the effect was not sufficiently clinically meaningful for regulatory approval, and the Food and Drug Administration issued a letter concurring with the committee's recommendation. The role of denosumab in prostate cancer will continue to evolve either as monotherapy or in combination with other bone-targeting strategies.
| S-EPMC3459574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(153)Sm-ethylenediaminetetramethylenephosphonic acid (EDTMP; Quadramet) is indicated for the treatment of painful bone metastases, whereas zoledronic acid (Zometa) is indicated for the prevention of skeletal complications. Because of the different therapeutic effects, combining the treatments may be beneficial. Both, however, accumulate in areas with increased osteoblastic activity. Possible drug interactions were investigated.Patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer were treated with 18.5 MBq/kg (153)Sm-EDTMP in weeks 1 and 3 and with 37 MBq/kg in week 15. Treatment with 4 mg zoledronic acid began in week 3 and continued every 4 weeks through week 23. In weeks 3 and 15, zoledronic acid was administered 2 days before (153)Sm-EDTMP treatment. Urine was collected 48 h after injection of (153)Sm-EDTMP, and whole-body images were obtained 6, 24 and 48 h post-injection. The effect of zoledronic acid on total bone uptake of (153)Sm-EDTMP was measured indirectly by the cumulative activity excreted in the urine in weeks 1, 3 and 15. Biodistribution, safety, tolerability and effect on prostate-specific antigen level were also studied.The urinary excretion in week 3 divided by the urinary excretion in week 1 (baseline) times 100% was mean 98.4 +/- 11.6% (median 96.2%). From week 1 to 15, after four zoledronic acid treatments, the mean ratio was 101.9 +/- 10.7% (median 101.8%). Bioequivalence could be concluded by using a two-sample t test for both per-protocol (n = 13) and full-analysis sets (n = 18). Toxicity was comparable to of monotherapy with (153)Sm-EDTMP.Zoledronic acid treatment does not influence (153)Sm-EDTMP skeletal uptake. Combined treatment is feasible and safe.
| S-EPMC2668561 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundBone metastases are a major burden in men with advanced prostate cancer. We compared denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, with zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer.MethodsIn this phase 3 study, men with castration-resistant prostate cancer and no previous exposure to intravenous bisphosphonate were enrolled from 342 centres in 39 countries. An interactive voice response system was used to assign patients (1:1 ratio), according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to receive 120 mg subcutaneous denosumab plus intravenous placebo, or 4 mg intravenous zoledronic acid plus subcutaneous placebo, every 4 weeks until the primary analysis cutoff date. Randomisation was stratified by previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen concentration, and chemotherapy for prostate cancer within 6 weeks before randomisation. Supplemental calcium and vitamin D were strongly recommended. Patients, study staff, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was time to first on-study skeletal-related event (pathological fracture, radiation therapy, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression), and was assessed for non-inferiority. The same outcome was further assessed for superiority as a secondary endpoint. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00321620, and has been completed.Findings1904 patients were randomised, of whom 950 assigned to denosumab and 951 assigned to receive zoledronic acid were eligible for the efficacy analysis. Median duration on study at primary analysis cutoff date was 12·2 months (IQR 5·9-18·5) for patients on denosumab and 11·2 months (IQR 5·6-17·4) for those on zoledronic acid. Median time to first on-study skeletal-related event was 20·7 months (95% CI 18·8-24·9) with denosumab compared with 17·1 months (15·0-19·4) with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·71-0·95; p = 0·0002 for non-inferiority; p = 0·008 for superiority). Adverse events were recorded in 916 patients (97%) on denosumab and 918 patients (97%) on zoledronic acid, and serious adverse events were recorded in 594 patients (63%) on denosumab and 568 patients (60%) on zoledronic acid. More events of hypocalcaemia occurred in the denosumab group (121 [13%]) than in the zoledronic acid group (55 [6%]; p<0·0001). Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred infrequently (22 [2%] vs 12 [1%]; p = 0·09).InterpretationDenosumab was better than zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events, and potentially represents a novel treatment option in men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer.FundingAmgen.
| S-EPMC3090685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. Methods: We updated and utilized a previously validated Markov microsimulation model to obtain the cost-effectiveness of two strategies for treating postmenopausal osteoporotic women. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid (i.e., biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years) with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective. Our study's willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to three times the value of China's per capita GDP in 2020 ($31,512). Results: The ICERs of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid monotherapy were $59,389/QALY, $23,821/QALY, $22,710/QALY, and $14,027/QALY at age 65, 70, 75, and 80 years, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the most impactful parameter was the persistence rate of the medications. If the persistence rate of denosumab or zoledronic acid was increased by 10%, sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid would be cost-effective at age 65. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential denosumab/zoledronic being cost-effective compared to zoledronic acid monotherapy were approximately 29.3%, 68.7%, 86.1%, and 99.4% for ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 years, respectively, at the WTP threshold of $31,512/QALY. Conclusion: Among Chinese postmenopausal osteoporosis women over 70 years old, sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid was cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy at the pre-determined WTP threshold.
| S-EPMC8971554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSwitch from zoledronic acid (ZA) to denosumab may increase the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) owing to the additive effect of denosumab on the jawbone and residual ZA activities. We evaluated the risk of developing MRONJ in patients who received ZA, denosumab, or ZA-to-denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases.MethodsThe medical charts of patients with cancer who received denosumab or ZA for bone metastases were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who did not undergo a dental examination at baseline were excluded. Primary endpoint was the evaluation of the risk of developing MRONJ in the ZA-to-denosumab group. Secondary endpoints were probability of MRONJ and the relationship between risk factors and the time to the development of MRONJ.ResultsAmong the 795 patients included in this study, 65 (8.2%) developed MRONJ. The incidence of MRONJ was significantly higher in the ZA-to-denosumab group than in the ZA group [7/43 (16.3%) vs. 19/350 (5.4%), p = 0.007]. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that denosumab treatment [hazard ratio (HR), 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.37-4.39; p = 0.002], ZA-to-denosumab treatment (HR, 4.36; 95% CI, 1.63-10.54, p = 0.005), tooth extraction after starting ZA or denosumab (HR, 4.86; 95% CI, 2.75-8.36; p < 0.001), and concomitant use of antiangiogenic agents (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96; p = 0.030) were significant risk factors for MRONJ.ConclusionOur results suggest that switching from ZA to denosumab significantly increases the risk for developing MRONJ in patients with bone metastases.
| S-EPMC8110486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among hypothetical cohorts of older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two treatment strategies using a simulation model. Annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years was cost-saving compared with biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 3 years.PurposeOsteoporosis constitutes a major medical and health economic burden to society worldwide. Injectable treatments for osteoporosis require less frequent administration than oral treatments and therefore have higher persistence and adherence with treatment, which could explain better efficacy for fracture prevention. Although annual intravenous zoledronic acid and biannual subcutaneous denosumab are available, it remains unclear which treatment strategy represents a better value from a health economic perspective. Accordingly, we examined the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid for 3 years compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate (i.e., denosumab for 3 years followed by oral weekly alendronate for 3 years, making the total treatment duration 6 years) among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan at ages 65, 70, 75, or 80 years.MethodsUsing a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) from the public healthcare and long-term care payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5 million (or $47,500) per QALY.ResultsIn the base case, zoledronic acid was cost-saving (i.e., more effective and less expensive) compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to changes in the efficacy of zoledronic acid or the cumulative persistence rate with zoledronic acid or denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective were 98-100%.ConclusionsAmong older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, zoledronic acid was cost-saving compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate.
| S-EPMC8282566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE: (188)Re-HEDP is indicated for the treatment of pain in patients with painful osteoblastic bone metastases, including hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Efficacy may be improved by adding chemotherapy to the treatment regimen as a radiation sensitizer. The combination of (188)Re-HEDP and capecitabine (Xeloda(R)) was tested in a clinical phase I study. METHODS: Patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer were treated with capecitabine for 14 days (oral twice daily in a dose escalation regimen with steps of 1/3 of 2,500 mg/m(2) per day in cohorts of three to six patients, depending on toxicity). Two days later patients were treated with 37 MBq/kg (188)Re-HEDP as an intravenous injection. Six hours after treatment post-therapy scintigraphy was performed. Urine was collected for 8 h post-injection. Follow-up was at least 8 weeks. The primary end-point was to establish the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of capecitabine when combined with (188)Re-HEDP. Secondary end-points included the effect of capecitabine on the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of (188)Re-HEDP. RESULTS: Three patients were treated in the first and second cohorts, each without unacceptable toxicity. One of six patients in the highest cohort experienced unacceptable toxicity (grade 4 thrombopaenia). The MTD proved to be the maximum dose of 2,500 mg/m(2) per day capecitabine. No unexpected toxicity occurred. Capecitabine had no effect on uptake or excretion of (188)Re-HEDP. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine may be safely used in combination with (188)Re-HEDP in a dose of 2,500 mg/m(2) per day and 37 MBq/kg, respectively. Efficacy will be further studied in a phase II study using these dosages.
| S-EPMC2724641 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess cost implications per patient, per year, and to predict the potential annual budget impact when patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumours at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) transition from zoledronic acid (ZA; 4 mg every 3-4 weeks) to denosumab (120 mg every 4 weeks) in Austria, Sweden and Switzerland.MethodsCountry specific costs for medication and administration, patient management and SREs (defined as pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone and spinal cord compression) were assessed over a 1-year time horizon. Drug administration and patient management costs were taken from available public sources. SRE costs were based on local unit costs applied to country specific healthcare resources obtained from a multinational retrospective chart review study. Due to lack of real world data for the included countries, SRE rates were derived from phase III clinical trials in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases. These trials demonstrated that denosumab was superior to ZA in the reduction of SREs.ResultsEstimated total annual cost savings for each patient transitioned from ZA to denosumab varied by country and cancer type, ranging from €1583 to €2375 in Austria, from €1980 to €2319 in Sweden (9.1 SEK/€) and from €3408 to €3857 in Switzerland (1.2 CHF/€). Cost savings were mainly driven by the lower SRE related costs and lower administration costs of denosumab compared with ZA.ConclusionsDenosumab offers superior efficacy compared with ZA in patients with solid tumours and bone metastases. Cost savings are predicted in the Austrian, Swedish and Swiss healthcare systems following treatment transition from ZA to denosumab.
| S-EPMC3717600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Denosumab treatment is effective for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases. However, hypocalcemia has been recognized as a serious adverse effect of denosumab. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for hypocalcemia in patients with bone metastases. In this prospective open-label study, 35 patients with bone metastases to be treated with denosumab were recruited. During the 3 months follow-up, 9 patients (25.7%) experienced hypocalcemia. Higher bone turnover status at baseline was observed in patients with hypocalcemia than in those without hypocalcemia following denosumab administration (total-P1NP, TRACP-5b, and S-NTX: all p < .05). Negative correlations were observed between the lowest calcium levels and baseline bone turnover markers (BTMs) levels (total-P1NP: r = -0.3987; TRACP-5b: r = -0.3664; S-NTX: r = -0.3672, all p < .05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with high BTMs (BAP > 32.1 μg/L, total P1NP > 82.3 μg/L, TRACP-5b > 866 mU/dL, S-NTX > 30.8 nmol BCE/L) had a higher risk of hypocalcemia, even after adjusting for reported risk factors, such as age, baseline calcium levels, and renal function (BAP > 32.1 μg/L: OR = 10.4; total P1NP > 82.3 μg/L: OR = 22.07; TRACP-5b > 866 mU/dL: OR = 36.5; S-NTX > 30.8 nmol BCE/L: OR = 39.74, all p < .05). This study shows that denosumab significantly affects serum calcium levels in patients with bone metastases who have high bone turnover status. Bone turnover markers could serve as surrogate markers to predict hypocalcemia.
| S-EPMC11911062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose Skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone metastasis cause considerable morbidity, decrements in quality of life, and costs to the health care system. The results of a recent large randomized trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [CALGB/Alliance 70604]) showed that zoledronic acid (ZA) every 3 months was noninferior to monthly ZA in reducing the risks of SREs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases. Methods Using a Markov model, costs per SRE avoided were calculated for the three treatments. Sensitivity analyses were performed where denosumab SRE probabilities were assumed to be 50%, 75%, and 90% lower than the ZA SRE probabilities. Quality-adjusted life-years were also calculated. The analysis was from the US payer perspective. Results The mean costs of the denosumab treatment strategy are nine-fold higher than generic ZA every 3 months. Quality-adjusted life-years were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA every 3 months because it was the least costly treatment. The sensitivity analyses showed that relative to ZA every 3 months, the incremental costs per mean SRE avoided for denosumab ranged from $162,918 to $347,655. Conclusion ZA every 3 months was more CE in reducing the risks of SRE than monthly denosumab. This analysis was one of the first to incorporate the costs of generic ZA and one of the first independent CE analyses not sponsored by either Novartis or Amgen, the makers of ZA and denosumab, respectively. ZA every 3 months is the more CE option and more reasonable alternative to monthly denosumab.
| S-EPMC5721226 | biostudies-literature