Dataset Information

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: Limited head-to-head comparative safety and effectiveness data exist between denosumab and zoledronic acid in real-world healthcare. We aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of denosumab compared to zoledronic acid with regard to risk of serious infection and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and osteoporotic fracture. We conducted a cohort study using claims data (2009-2013) from a US commercial insurance plan database. We included patients aged ?50 years who were newly initiated on denosumab or zoledronic acid. The primary outcomes were (1) hospitalization for serious infection; (2) composite CVD endpoint including myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and heart failure; and (3) nonvertebral osteoporotic fracture including hip, wrist, forearm, and pelvic fracture. To control for potential confounders, we used 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching. Cox proportional hazards models compared the risk of serious infection, CVD, and osteoporotic fracture within 365 days after initiation of denosumab versus zoledronic acid. After PS matching, a total of 2467 pairs of denosumab and zoledronic acid initiators were selected with a mean age of 63 years and 96% were female. When compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab was not associated with an increased risk of serious infection (HR 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.21) or CVD (HR 1.11; 95% CI, 0.60 to 2.03). Similar results were obtained for each component of CVD. The risk of osteoporotic fracture was also similar between groups (HR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.73). This large population-based cohort study shows that denosumab and zoledronic acid have comparable clinical safety and effectiveness with regard to the risk of serious infection, CVD, and osteoporosis fracture within 365 days after initiation of medications. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

SUBMITTER: Choi NK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5340628 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Cohort Study.

Choi Nam-Kyong NK Solomon Daniel H DH Tsacogianis Theodore N TN Landon Joan E JE Song Hong Ji HJ Kim Seoyoung C SC

Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 20170207 3

Limited head-to-head comparative safety and effectiveness data exist between denosumab and zoledronic acid in real-world healthcare. We aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of denosumab compared to zoledronic acid with regard to risk of serious infection and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and osteoporotic fracture. We conducted a cohort study using claims data (2009-2013) from a US commercial insurance plan database. We included patients aged ≥50 years who were newly initiated on denosuma ...[more]

PMID: 27736041

Similar Datasets

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.

Dataset Information

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Cohort Study.

Publications

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets