Dataset Information

Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment.

ABSTRACT: Since alendronate became available in generic form in the Unites States in 2008, its price has been decreasing. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women.Microsimulation cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment for U.S. women age 65 and older. We assumed screening initiation at age 65 with central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and alendronate treatment for individuals with osteoporosis; with a comparator of "no screening" and treatment only after fracture occurrence. We evaluated annual alendronate costs of $20 through $800; outcome measures included fractures; nursing home admission; medication adverse events; death; costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2010 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. A lifetime time horizon was used, and direct costs were included. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed.Base-case analysis results showed that at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less, osteoporosis screening followed by treatment was cost-saving, resulting in lower total costs than no screening as well as more QALYs (10.6 additional quality-adjusted life-days). When assuming alendronate costs of $400 through $800, screening and treatment resulted in greater lifetime costs than no screening but was highly cost-effective, with ICERs ranging from $714 per QALY gained through $13,902 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment was robust to joint input parameter estimate variation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY at all alendronate costs evaluated.Osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment is effective and highly cost-effective for postmenopausal women across a range of alendronate costs, and may be cost-saving at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less.

SUBMITTER: Nayak S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3302782 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment.

Nayak Smita S Roberts Mark S MS Greenspan Susan L SL

PloS one 20120313 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Since alendronate became available in generic form in the Unites States in 2008, its price has been decreasing. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women.<h4>Methods</h4>Microsimulation cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment for U.S. women age 65 and older. We assumed screening initiation at age 65 with central dual-energy x- ...[more]

PMID: 22427903

Similar Datasets

Project description:Teriparatide, currently only available in brand form in the United States, is a costly drug approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women who are at high risk of fracture. Because market exclusivity for brand teriparatide expired in August 2019 in the US, we sought to understand the potential health economic impact of the availability of generic or biosimilar (generic/biosimilar) teriparatide. We examined the cost-effectiveness of daily teriparatide for 2?years followed by weekly alendronate for 10?years (ie, sequential teriparatide/alendronate) compared with alendronate alone for 10?years in community-dwelling white osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80. Using an updated version of previously validated Markov microsimulation models, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $150,000 per QALY from a societal perspective with a lifelong time horizon. In the base case, we estimated the annual cost of teriparatide to be $20,161, based on the assumption of 10% brand usage (at a cost of $27,618) and 90% generic/biosimilar usage (priced 30% lower than brand). The ICERs of sequential teriparatide/alendronate compared with alendronate alone were greater than $280,000 per QALY at all ages examined. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to teriparatide's cost, with the cost of a generic/biosimilar product needing to be 65% to 85% lower than brand for sequential teriparatide/alendronate to be cost-effective. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, under the assumption that the annual cost of teriparatide was $20,161, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were less than 4% at a WTP of $150,000 per QALY. In conclusion, among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in the US, even with the potential availability of generic/biosimilar teriparatide, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would not be cost-effective unless the cost of generic/biosimilar teriparatide were heavily discounted with respect to the current brand cost. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing 5 versus 10 years of alendronate treatment prior to 5-year drug holiday for US postmenopausal women with hip BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5. We found that for most postmenopausal women 5 years of treatment prior to drug holiday is the more effective and cost-effective option.IntroductionWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 5 versus 10 years of alendronate treatment prior to 5-year drug holiday for postmenopausal osteoporotic women.MethodsWe created an individual-level state-transition microsimulation model to compare 3 treatment strategies for US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and femoral neck BMD T-scores between - 2.5 and - 3.5 at baseline: recurrent periods of 5 years of alendronate followed by 5 years of drug holiday (alendronate 5/5), recurrent periods of 10 years of alendronate followed by 5 years of drug holiday (alendronate 10/5), and no alendronate treatment.ResultsBase-case analysis revealed for women initiating treatment at ages 50, 60, and 70, the alendronate 5/5 strategy dominated (was more effective and less costly than) the alendronate 10/5 strategy and no treatment. For women age 80, the alendronate 10/5 strategy dominated. When assuming a lower relative risk of nonvertebral fracture during years 6-10 of alendronate treatment than the base-case assumption, the alendronate 10/5 strategy became the most cost-effective strategy even at younger treatment initiation ages. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings; for treatment initiation ages of 50, 60, and 70, the alendronate 5/5 strategy was favored, whereas for treatment initiation age of 80, the alendronate 10/5 strategy was favored; however, there was uncertainty in these findings.ConclusionsAfter 5 years of alendronate treatment, younger postmenopausal women (ages 50-70) with osteoporosis would likely benefit from a drug holiday, whereas older women (age 80) are likely to benefit from treatment for 10 years before a drug holiday.

Project description:Osteoporosis affects many men, with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the best osteoporosis screening strategies for men are unknown. We developed an individual-level state-transition cost-effectiveness model with a lifetime time horizon to identify the cost-effectiveness of different osteoporosis screening strategies for US men involving various screening tests (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA]; the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool [OST]; or a fracture risk assessment strategy using age, femoral neck bone mineral density [BMD], and Vertebral Fracture Assessment [VFA]); screening initiation ages (50, 60, 70, or 80 years); and repeat screening intervals (5 years or 10 years). In base-case analysis, no screening was a less effective option than all other strategies evaluated; furthermore, no screening was more expensive than all strategies that involved screening with DXA or the OST risk assessment instrument, and thus no screening was "dominated" by screening with DXA or OST at all evaluated screening initiation ages and repeat screening intervals. Screening strategies that most frequently appeared as most cost-effective in base-case analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses when assuming willingness-to-pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $100,000/QALY included screening initiation at age 50 years with the fracture risk assessment strategy and repeat screening every 10 years; screening initiation at age 50 years with fracture risk assessment and repeat screening every 5 years; and screening initiation at age 50 years with DXA and repeat screening every 5 years. In conclusion, expansion of osteoporosis screening for US men to initiate routine screening at age 50 or 60 years would be expected to be effective and of good value for improving health outcomes. A fracture risk assessment strategy using variables of age, femoral neck BMD, and VFA is likely to be the most effective of the evaluated strategies within accepted cost-effectiveness parameters. DXA and OST are also reasonable screening options, albeit likely slightly less effective than the evaluated fracture risk assessment strategy. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:The use of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet, a convenient dosing regimen for bisphosphonate therapy, seems a cost-effective strategy compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis aged 60 years and over in Italy.IntroductionTo assess the cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate (ALN) 70 mg effervescent tablet compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Italy.MethodsA previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adjusted to the Italian healthcare setting to estimate the lifetime costs (expressed in €2019) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of buffered soluble ALN compared with generic ALN, denosumab, zoledronic acid and no treatment. Pooled efficacy data derived from the NICE network meta-analysis were used for bisphosphonate treatments. Two treatment duration scenarios were assessed: 1 year using persistence data derived from an Italian prospective observational study including 144 and 216 postmenopausal osteoporotic women on buffered soluble ALN and oral ALN, respectively, and 3 years. Analyses were conducted for women 60-80 years of age with a bone mineral density T-score ≤ - 3.0 or with existing vertebral fractures.ResultsIn all simulated populations, buffered soluble ALN was dominant (more QALYs, lower costs) compared to denosumab. The cost per QALY gained of buffered soluble ALN compared to generic ALN and no treatment always falls below €20,000 per QALY gained. In the 1-year treatment scenario, zoledronic acid was associated with more QALY than buffered soluble ALN but the cost per QALY gained of zoledronic acid compared with buffered soluble ALN was always higher than €70,000, while buffered soluble ALN was dominant in the 3-year treatment scenario.ConclusionThis study suggests that buffered soluble ALN represents a cost-effective strategy compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis women in Italy aged 60 years and over.

Project description:The efficacy of generic teriparatide in improving BMD at lumbar spine in patients with osteoporosis was similar to that of alendronate. It provided a new choice for osteoporosis treatment in Chinese population.IntroductionTo determine whether the efficacy of generic teriparatide is noninferior to alendronate for Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.MethodsEligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in a 48-week, open-label design to receive 20 µg sc daily teriparatide or 70 mg oral weekly alendronate. Primary outcome was percentage change in BMD at the lumbar spine from baseline to 48 weeks and was assessed for non-inferiority. The same outcome was further assessed for superiority as a secondary endpoint.ResultsThree hundred ninety-one and 196 participants were randomly assigned to the teriparatide or alendronate group, of whom 379 and 194 receiving at least one dose of teriparatide and alendronate treatment were eligible for the efficacy analysis. Teriparatide was non-inferior to alendronate for BMD change at lumbar spine (treatment difference: 0.7%, 95% CI: - 0.3 to 1.7%), which excluded the predefined non-inferiority margin of - 1.5%. However, teriparatide was not statistically superior to alendronate in improving BMD at lumbar spine (P = 0.169). At 48 weeks, changes in BMD at total hip were - 1.0% and 2.2% in teriparatide and alendronate group, respectively (P < 0.001). The incidence of new fracture showed no statistical difference between groups (P = 0.128). Serum P1NP and β-CTX levels significantly increased in the teriparatide group and markedly decreased in alendronate group (all P < 0.001 vs baseline). The adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were more common in the teriparatide group than in the alendronate group, which were mainly teriparatide-related hypercalcemia, elevated alkaline phosphatase or parathyroid hormone, dizziness, and arthralgia.ConclusionsTeriparatide was not inferior to alendronate in increasing BMD at lumbar spine in Chinese postmenopausal women, and they achieved these effects through different mechanisms.

Project description:ImportanceFalls and osteoporosis share the potential clinical end point of fractures among older patients. To date, few fall prevention guidelines incorporate screening for osteoporosis to reduce fall-related fractures.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for osteoporosis using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) followed by osteoporosis treatment in older men with a history of falls.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to simulate the incidence of major osteoporotic fractures in a hypothetical cohort of community-dwelling men aged 65 years who had fallen at least once in the past year. Data sources included literature published from January 1, 1946, to July 31, 2020. The model adopted a societal perspective, a lifetime horizon, a 1-year cycle length, and a discount rate of 3% per year for both health benefits and costs. The analysis was designed and conducted from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020.InterventionsScreening with DXA followed by treatment for men diagnosed with osteoporosis compared with usual care.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsAmong the hypothetical cohort of men aged 65 years, the screening strategy had an ICER of $33 169/QALY gained and was preferred over usual care at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. The number needed to screen to prevent 1 hip fracture was 1876; to prevent 1 major osteoporotic fracture, 746. The screening strategy would become more effective and less costly than usual care for men 77 years and older. The ICER for the screening strategy did not substantially change across a wide range of assumptions tested in all other deterministic sensitivity analyses. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY gained, screening was cost-effective in 56.0% of simulations; at $100 000/QALY gained, 90.8% of simulations; and at $200 000/QALY gained, 99.6% of simulations.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that for older men who have fallen at least once in the past year, screening with DXA followed by treatment for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is a cost-effective use of resources. Fall history could be a useful cue to trigger assessment for osteoporosis in men.

Project description:Background & aimsAvailability of directly-acting antivirals (DAAs) has changed the treatment landscape of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The high price of DAAs has restricted their use in several countries. However, in some countries such as India, generic DAAs are available at much cheaper price. This study examined whether generic DAAs could be cost-saving and how long it would take for the treatment to become cost-saving/effective.MethodsA previously-validated, mathematical model was adapted to the HCV-infected population in India to compare the outcomes of no treatment versus treatment with DAAs. Model parameters were estimated from published studies. Cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment using available DAAs was calculated, using a payer's perspective. We estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DAAs versus no treatment. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsCompared with no treatment, the use of generic DAAs in Indian HCV patients would increase the life expectancy by 8.02 years, increase QALYs by 3.89, avert 19.07 DALYs, and reduce the lifetime healthcare costs by $1,309 per-person treated. Treatment became cost-effective within 2 years, and cost-saving within 10 years of its initiation overall and within 5 years in persons with cirrhosis. Treating 10,000 HCV-infected persons could prevent 3400-3850 decompensated cirrhosis, 1800-2500 HCC, and 4000-4550 liver-related deaths. The results were sensitive to the costs of DAAs, pre- and post-treatment diagnostic tests and management of cirrhosis, and quality of life after sustained virologic response.ConclusionsTreatment with generic DAAs available in India will improve patient outcomes, provide a good value for money within 2 years, and be ultimately cost-saving. Therefore, in this and similar settings, HCV treatment should be a priority from a public health as well an economic perspective.

Dataset Information

Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment.

Publications

Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets