Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Denosumab for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in South Korea.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Osteoporosis is a progressive skeletal disease associated with an increased risk of bone fracture. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for osteoporotic fracture prevention compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene) in a cohort of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Methods

A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of denosumab versus comparators. The model had a cycle length of 6 months and was run from the age of 68 years to individual patients' lifetime or the age of 100 years. The health states considered in the model were well, hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, other osteoporotic fracture, post-hip fracture, post-vertebral fracture, and death. Recent local data were used as inputs for the model parameters. A discount rate of 4.5% was applied to both costs and outcomes.

Results

From the perspective of the healthcare system, denosumab was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to all comparators, considering one unit of Korea's gross domestic product per capita, USA dollar (USD) 34,870. Denosumab was cost-saving compared to ibandronate (oral) and raloxifene. Compared to alendronate, denosumab was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 767.10 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER of denosumab vs. ibandronate IV, risedronate, and zoledronate was USD 685.63, USD 1,469.71, USD 4,668.53 per QALY, respectively.

Conclusions

The findings of this analysis suggest that denosumab is a cost-effective therapeutic option for preventing fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in South Korea.

SUBMITTER: Kang JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9208907 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To determine denosumab's effectiveness for fracture prevention among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in East Asia, the risk of fracture was compared between patients continuing denosumab therapy versus patients discontinuing denosumab after one dose. The real-world effectiveness was observed to be consistent with the efficacy demonstrated in the phase III trial.IntroductionAfter therapeutic efficacy is demonstrated for subjects in global clinical trials, real-world evidence may provide complementary knowledge of therapeutic effectiveness in a heterogeneous mix of patients seen in clinical practice. This retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the fracture risk in real-world clinical care received in Taiwan and Hong Kong between a treatment cohort (patients receiving denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months) versus an off-treatment cohort (patients discontinuing after 1 dose of denosumab, which has no known clinical benefit) among real-world postmenopausal women.MethodsThis study included 38,906 and 2,835 postmenopausal women receiving denosumab in Taiwan and Hong Kong, respectively. The primary endpoint was hip fracture, and secondary endpoints were clinical vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Propensity-score-matched analysis, adjusting for known covariates, was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The robustness of findings was evaluated with a series of sensitivity and quantitative bias analyses.ResultsIn this study, 554 hip fractures were included in the primary Taiwan population analysis. The crude incidence rate was 0.9 per 100 person-years in the treatment cohort (n = 25,059) and 1.7 per 100 person-years in the off-treatment cohort (n = 13,847). After adjusting for prognostic differences between cohorts, denosumab reduced the risk of hip fractures by 38% (HR = 0.62, CI:0.52-0.75). Risk reductions of similar magnitude were observed for the secondary endpoints and for the analysis of the smaller Hong Kong population.ConclusionThe effectiveness of denosumab for fracture reduction among real-world postmenopausal women with osteoporosis was consistent with the efficacy demonstrated in a global clinical trial.RegistrationEnCePP registration number: EUPAS26372; registration date: 12/11/2018.

Project description:BackgroundThis paper presents the model and results to evaluate the use of teriparatide as a first-line treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). The study's objective was to determine if teriparatide is cost effective against oral bisphosphonates for two large and high risk cohorts.MethodsA computer simulation model was created to model treatment, osteoporosis related fractures, and the remaining life of PMO and GIOP patients. Natural mortality and additional mortality from osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Costs for treatment with both teriparatide and oral bisphosphonates were included. Drug efficacy was modeled as a reduction to the relative fracture risk for subsequent osteoporosis related fractures. Patient health utilities associated with age, gender, and osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Patient costs and utilities were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates and teriparatide versus no treatment were estimated.For each of the PMO and GIOP populations, two cohorts differentiated by fracture history were simulated. The first contained patients with both a historical vertebral fracture and an incident vertebral fracture. The second contained patients with only an incident vertebral fracture. The PMO cohorts simulated had an initial Bone Mineral Density (BMD) T-Score of -3.0. The GIOP cohorts simulated had an initial BMD T-Score of -2.5.ResultsThe ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture PMO cohorts were €36,995 per QALY and €19,371 per QALY. The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture GIOP cohorts were €20,826 per QALY and €15,155 per QALY, respectively.ConclusionsThe selection of teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates as a first-line treatment for the high risk PMO and GIOP cohorts evaluated is justified at a cost per QALY threshold of €50,000.