Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-effectiveness of oral ibandronate compared with intravenous (i.v.) zoledronic acid or i.v. generic pamidronate in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease undergoing i.v. chemotherapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Ibandronate is the first third-generation bisphosphonate to have both oral and intravenous (i.v.) efficacy. An incremental cost-effectiveness model compared oral ibandronate with i.v. zoledronic acid and i.v. generic pamidronate in female breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease, undergoing i.v. chemotherapy.

Methods

A global economic model was adapted to the UK National Health Service (NHS), with primary outcomes of direct healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Efficacy, measured as relative risk reduction of skeletal-related events (SREs), was obtained from clinical trials. Resource use data for i.v. bisphosphonates and the cost of managing SREs were obtained from published studies. Hospital management and SRE treatment costs were taken from unit cost databases. Monthly drug acquisition costs were obtained from the British National Formulary. Utility scores were applied to time with/without an SRE to adjust survival for quality of life. Model design and inputs were validated through expert UK clinician review.

Results

Total cost, including drug acquisition, was £386 less per patient with oral ibandronate vs. i.v. zoledronic acid and £224 less vs. i.v. generic pamidronate. Oral ibandronate gained 0.019 and 0.02 QALYs vs. i.v. zoledronic acid and i.v. pamidronate, respectively, making it the economically dominant option. At a threshold of £30,000 per QALY, oral ibandronate was cost-effective vs. zoledronic acid in 85% of simulations and vs. pamidronate in 79%.

Conclusions

Oral ibandronate is a cost-effective treatment for metastatic bone disease from breast cancer due to reduced SREs, bone pain, and cost savings from avoidance of resource use commonly associated with bisphosphonate infusions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coleman RE (1997) Skeletal complications of malignancy. Cancer 80(8 Suppl):1588–1594

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coleman RE (2001) Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev 27(3):165–176

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Diel IJ, Solomayer EF, Bastert G (2000) Treatment of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer: bisphosphonates. Clin Breast Cancer 1(1):43–51

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Janjan N (2001) Bone metastases: approaches to management. Semin Oncol 28(4 Suppl 11):28–34

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cancer Research UK. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/

  6. Scheid V, Buzdar AU, Smith TL et al (1986) Clinical course of breast cancer patients with osseous metastasis treated with combination chemotherapy. Cancer 58:2589–2593

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Body J-J (2003) Effectiveness and cost of bisphosphonate therapy in tumor bone disease. Cancer 97(3 Suppl):859–865

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Delea T, McKiernan J, Liss M et al (2004) Effects of skeletal complications on total medical care costs in women with bone metastases of breast cancer. Bone 34(Suppl 1):S86 (abstract 68)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hillner BE, Ingle JN, Chlebowski RT et al (2003) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2003 update on the role of bisphosphonates and bone health issues in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:4042–4057

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Poznak CH (2002) The use of bisphosphonates in patients with breast cancer. Cancer Control 9(6):480–489

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Body JJ, Bartl R, Burckhardt P, For the International Bone and Cancer Study Group et al (1998) Current use of bisphosphonates in oncology. J Clin Oncol 16:3890–3899

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. DesHarnais Castel L, Bajwa K, Markle JP, Timbie JW, Zacker C, Schulman KA (2001) A microcosting analysis of zoledronic acid and pamidronate therapy in patients with metastatic bone disease. Support Care Cancer 9(7):545–551

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hillner BE, Weeks JC, Desch CE, Smith TJ (2000) Pamidronate in prevention of bone complications in metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 18(1):72–79

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Porter L et al (1996) Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer and lytic bone metastases. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. N Engl J Med 335(24):1785–1791

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hortobagyi G, Theriault R, Lipton A et al (1998) Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 16:2038–2044

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Theriault RL, Lipton A, Hortobagyi GN et al (1999) Pamidronate reduces skeletal morbidity in women with advanced breast cancer and lytic bone lesions: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Protocol 18 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 17(3):846–854

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dranitsaris G, Hsu T (1999) Cost utility analysis of prophylactic pamidronate for the prevention of skeletal related events in patients with advanced breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 7(4):271–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beusterien KM, Hill MC, Ackerman SJ, Zacker C (2001) The impact of pamidronate on inpatient and outpatient services among metastatic breast cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 9(3):169–176

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Laakso M, Lahtinen R, Virkkunen P, Elomaa I (1994) Subgroup and cost-benefit analysis of the Finnish multicentre trial of clodronate in multiple myeloma. Finnish Leukaemia Group. Br J Haematol 87(4):725–729

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bruce NJ, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, Guest JF (1999) Economic impact of using clodronate in the management of patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 104(2):358–364

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Body J-J, Kanis J, Diel I, Bergstrom B (2003) Risk reductions in metastatic breast cancer: multivariate Poisson regression analyses of oral and i.v. ibandronate. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22:46 (abstract 184)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Body J-J, Diel IJ, Lichinitzer M et al (2004a) Oral ibandronate reduces the risk of skeletal complications in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: results from two randomised, placebo-controlled phase III studies. Br J Cancer 90(6):1133–1137

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M et al (2001) Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer or osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma: a phase III, double-blind, comparative trial. Cancer J 7(5):377–387

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M et al (2003a) Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer 98:1735–1744

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Tchekmedyian S et al (2003b) Zoledronic acid versus placebo in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors: a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial—the Zoledronic Acid Lung Cancer and other solid tumors study group. J Clin Oncol 21:3150–3157

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Saad F (2002) Zoledronic acid significantly reduces pathologic fractures in patients with advanced-stage prostate cancer metastatic to bone. Clin Prostate Cancer 1:145–152

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lipton A, Theriault RL, Hortobagyi GN et al (2000) Pamidronate prevents skeletal complications and is effective palliative treatment in women with breast carcinoma and osteolytic bone metastases: long term follow-up of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Cancer 88(5):1082–1090

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tripathy D, Body J-J, Diel IJ, Bergstrom B (2003) Intravenous and oral ibandronate alleviate pain in patients with skeletal metastases from breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 82(Suppl 1):S133–S134 (abstract 548)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fulfaro F, Casuccio A, Ticozzi C, Ripamonti C (1998) The role of bisphosphonates in the treatment of painful metastatic bone disease: a review of phase III trials. Pain 78(3):157–169

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Berenson JR (2001) Zoledronic acid in cancer patients with bone metastases: results of phase I and II trials. Semin Oncol 28(2 Suppl 6):25–34

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  32. van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF (1994) Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 3:309–319

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Diel I, Bell R, Tripathy D, Body J-J, Bergstrom B (2003) Renal safety of oral and intravenous ibandronate in metastatic bone disease: phase III clinical trial results. Support Care Cancer 11:415 (abstract A-106)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Li EC, Davis LE (2003) Zoledronic acid: a new parenteral bisphosphonate. Clin Ther 25(11):2669–2708

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ibrahim A, Scher N, Williams G et al (2003) Approval summary for zoledronic acid for treatment of multiple myeloma and cancer bone metastases. Clin Cancer Res 9(7):2394–2399

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Body J, Diel I, Bergström B (2004b) Intravenous ibandronate does not affect time to renal function deterioration in patients with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 12:405 (A-120)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chang JT, Green L, Beitz J (2003) Renal failure with the use of zoledronic acid. N Engl J Med 349:1676–1679

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. PSSRU (2003) Unit costs of health and social care 2003. University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury

    Google Scholar 

  39. MEDTAP International (2003) MEDTAP Unit Cost Database

  40. Johnson KB, Gable P, Kaime EM, Luiken G, Castillos T, Hu J (2003) Significant deterioration in renal function with the new bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22:738 (abstract 2968)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mazj S, Lichtman SMI (2004) Renal dysfunction associated with bisphosphonate use: retrospective analysis of 293 patients with respect to age and other clinical characteristics. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 23:735 (abstract 8039)

    Google Scholar 

  42. De Cock E, Hutton J, Barrett-Lee P et al (2004) Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral ibandronate versus i.v.zoledronic acid or i.v.generic pamidronate for bone metastases from breast cancer in patients receiving oral hormonal therapy in the UK. EU ISPOR 2004 (submitted for publication)

  43. Powles T, Paterson S, Kanis JA et al (2002) Randomized placebo-controlled trial of clodronate in patients with primary operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:3219–3224

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. van den Hout WB, van der Linden YM, Steenland E et al (2003) Single- versus multiple-fraction radiotherapy in patients with painful bone metastases: cost-utility analysis based on a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(3):222–229

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. NHS Reference Costs 2003 and National Tariff 2004. Appendix 4—National schedule of reference costs: NHS trusts and primary care trusts combined. http://www.dh.gov.uk/

  46. British National Formulary 46. http://www.bnf.org/bnf/. March 2004

  47. NICE Appraisal Guidance 48

  48. Verrill M, De Cock E, Hutton J, Body JJ, Canney P, Neary M, Lewis G (2004) Medical resource use and costs for oral ibandronic acid compared to i.v. zoledronic acid or i.v. pamidronate for metastatic bone disease from breast cancer. Ann Oncol 15(Suppl. 3): iii51:(Abstract 192P)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The MEDTAP Institute at UBC, 20 Bloomsbury Square, London, WC1A 2NS, UK

    E. De Cock & J. Hutton

  2. Western Hospital, Glasgow, UK

    P. Canney

  3. Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    J. J. Body

  4. Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK

    P. Barrett-Lee

  5. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Nutley, NJ, USA

    M. P. Neary

  6. Roche Pharmaceuticals UK, Welwyn, UK

    G. Lewis

Authors
  1. E. De Cock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Hutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Canney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. J. Body
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Barrett-Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. P. Neary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. De Cock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Cock, E., Hutton, J., Canney, P. et al. Cost-effectiveness of oral ibandronate compared with intravenous (i.v.) zoledronic acid or i.v. generic pamidronate in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease undergoing i.v. chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 13, 975–986 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-005-0828-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-005-0828-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation