Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of five versus ten years of alendronate treatment prior to drug holiday for women with osteoporosis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

Introduction

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 5 versus 10 years of alendronate treatment prior to 5-year drug holiday for postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Base-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.

Conclusions

After 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.

SUBMITTER: Nayak S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8215100 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:Using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling older osteoporotic Japanese women with prior vertebral fracture over a lifetime horizon, we found that daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years.PurposeTeriparatide has proven efficacy in reducing osteoporotic fractures, but with substantial cost. We examined the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/alendronate (i.e., daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years) compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior clinical or morphometric vertebral fracture in Japan.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 perspective of a single payer responsible for both public healthcare and long-term care. We assumed a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5million (or $47,500) per QALY in the base case. We modeled the cost of biosimilar teriparatide, which has been available since November 2019 in Japan, assuming the efficacy was the same as that of the brand version.ResultsIn the base case, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would become cost-effective with 85%, 50%, and 15% price discounts to teriparatide at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively, compared to the current biosimilar cost. Otherwise, results were especially sensitive to changes that affected efficacy of teriparatide or alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were 0%, 1%, and 37% at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively.ConclusionsAmong high-risk osteoporotic women in Japan, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy, even with the availability of biosimilar teriparatide.

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: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: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 presumptive approach of confirming malaria in health facilities leads to over-diagnosis of malaria, over use of anti-malaria drugs and the risk of drug resistance development. WHO recommends parasitological confirmation before treatment with artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in all suspected malaria patients. The use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) would make it possible for prescribers to diagnose malaria at point-of-care and better target the use of antimalarials. Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on the introduction of mRDTs for management of malaria in under-five children in a high transmission area in Ghana where presumptive diagnosis was the norm in public health centres.A cluster-randomised controlled trial where thirty-two health centres were randomised into test-based diagnosis of malaria using mRDTs (intervention) or clinical judgement (control) was used to measure the effect of mRDTs on appropriate treatment: 'a child with a positive reference diagnosis prescribed a course of ACT or a child with a negative reference diagnosis not given an ACT'. Cost data was collected from five purposively selected health centres and used to estimate the health sector costs of performing an mRDT and treat children for malaria and other common febrile illnesses. Costs of training healthcare personnel and supervision in the study period were also collected. A sample of caregivers to children participating in the trial was interviewed about household cost incurred on transport, drugs, fees, and special food during a period of one week after the health centre visit as well as days unable to work. A decision model approach was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of ICERs.The availability of mRDTs for malaria diagnosis resulted in fewer ACT treatments compared to the clinical judgement approach (73% versus 81%) and more children appropriately treated (70% versus 57%). The introduction of mRDT-based diagnosis would cost the Ministry of Health US$18.6 per extra appropriately treated child under five compared to clinical judgement while the ICER from a societal perspective was lower at US$11.0 per appropriately treated child. ICERs were sensitive to a decrease in adherence to negative mRDTs, malaria positivity rate and specificity of the mRDT.The introduction of mRDTs is likely to be considered cost-effective in this high transmission setting as this intervention increased the number of appropriately treated children at low cost.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00832754.

Project description:BackgroundOpioid use has increased globally in the recent decade. Although pain remains a significant problem among older adults, susceptibility to opioid-related harms highlights the importance of careful opioid therapy monitoring on individual and societal levels. We aimed to describe the trends of prescription opioid utilisation among residents aged ≥65 in all Nordic countries during 2009-2018.MethodsWe conducted cross-sectional measurements of opioid utilisation in 2009-2018 from nationwide registers of dispensed drugs in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The measures included annual opioid prevalence, defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1000 inhabitants per day (DIDs), and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per user per day.ResultsFrom 2009 to 2018, an average of 808,584 of adults aged ≥65 used opioids yearly in all five countries; an average annual prevalence of 17.0%. During this time period, the prevalence decreased in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden due to declining codeine and/or tramadol use. Iceland had the highest opioid prevalence in 2009 (30.2%), increasing to 31.7% in 2018. In the same period, DIDs decreased in all five countries, and ranged from 28.3 in Finland to 58.5 in Denmark in 2009, and from 23.0 in Finland to 54.6 in Iceland in 2018. MMEs/user/day ranged from 4.4 in Iceland to 19.6 in Denmark in 2009, and from 4.6 in Iceland to 18.8 in Denmark in 2018. In Finland, Norway, and Sweden, MMEs/user/day increased from 2009 to 2018, mainly due to increasing oxycodone utilisation.ConclusionsThe stable or decreasing opioid utilisation prevalence among a majority of older adults across the Nordic countries coincides with an increase in treatment intensity in 2009-2018. We found large cross-national differences despite similarities across the countries' cultures and healthcare systems. For the aged population, national efforts should be placed on improving pain management and monitoring future trends of especially oxycodone utilisation.