Osteoporosis International

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1047–1061

Cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the treatment of postmenopausal women in 9 European countries - an economic evaluation based on the fracture intervention trial

  • O. Ström
  • F. Borgström
  • S. S. Sen
  • S. Boonen
  • P. Haentjens
  • O. Johnell
  • J. A. Kanis
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Treatment with alendronate (Fosamax®) has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of fragility fractures. Cost-effectiveness of treatment was assessed in nine European countries in a Markov model and was generally found to be cost effective in women with a previous spine fracture.

Introduction

Treatment with alendronate (Fosamax®) reduces the risk of osteoporotic fractures at the spine, hip and wrist in women with and without prevalent vertebral fracture. Cost-effectiveness estimates in one country may not be applicable elsewhere due to differences in fracture risks, costs and drug prices. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating postmenopausal women with alendronate in nine European countries, comprising Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.

Methods

A Markov model was populated with data for the nine European populations. Effect of treatment was taken from the Fracture Intervention Trial, which recruited women with low BMD alone or with a prior vertebral fracture.

Results

The cost per QALY gained of treating postmenopausal women with prior vertebral fractures ranged in the base case from “cost saving” in the Scandinavian countries to €15,000 in Italy. Corresponding estimates for women without prior vertebral fractures ranged from “cost saving” to €40,000.

Conclusions

In relation to thresholds generally used, the analysis suggests that alendronate is very cost effective in the treatment of women with previous vertebral fracture, and in women without previous vertebral fracture, cost-effectiveness depends on the country setting, discount rates, and chosen monetary thresholds.

Keywords

Alendronate Bisphosphonates Cost Europe Fracture Osteoporosis 

References

  1. 1.
    Melton LJ 3rd (1993) Hip fractures: a worldwide problem today and tomorrow. Bone 14(Suppl 1):S1–S8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black DM, FIT Research Group et al (2000) Fracture risk reduction with alendronate in women with osteoporosis: the fracture intervention trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85(11):4118–4124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black DM, Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group et al (1996) Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Lancet 348(9041):1535–1541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cummings SR et al (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the fracture intervention trial. Jama 280(24):2077–2082PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnell O et al (2003) Cost-effectiveness of alendronate (fosamax) for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of fractures. Pharmacoeconomics 21(5):305–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borgström F et al (2003) Cost-effectiveness of alendronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women in the UK. submittedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borgström F et al (2003) Cost-Effectiveness of alnedronate in the treatment of male osteoporosis. Bone. acceptedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonsson L, Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N (2003) [Cost-effectiveness of alendronate treatment of osteoporosis in Denmark. An economic evaluation based on the fracture intervention trial]. Ugeskr Laeger 165(43):4112–4116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosner AJ et al (1998) Cost-effectiveness of multi-therapy treatment strategies in the prevention of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 14(5):559–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen PM, Brixen K, Kristiansen IS (2003) Danish osteoporosis outcome model (DOOM)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N (2003) [Economic assessment based on a clinical study of risedronate. Fracture prevention in elderly women with osteoporosis is cost-effective]. Lakartidningen 100(1–2):36-40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stevenson M, Davis S (2006) Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of pooled alendronate and risedronate, compared with strontium ranelate, raloxifene, etidronate and teriparatide. [cited 2007-01-03]; Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=370643
  13. 13.
    Stock JL et al (1997) Increments in bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and hip and suppression of bone turnover are maintained after discontinuation of alendronate in postmenopausal women. Am J Med 103(4):291–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenspan SL et al (2002) Significant differential effects of alendronate, estrogen, or combination therapy on the rate of bone loss after discontinuation of treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 137(11):875–883PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tonino RP, Phase III Osteoporosis Treatment Study Group et al (2000) Skeletal benefits of alendronate: 7-year treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85(9):3109–3115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bone HG et al (2004) Ten years’ experience with alendronate for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 350(12):1189–1199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Borgstrom F et al (2006) An economic evaluation of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporosis in a Swedish setting: Based on the results of the SOTI and TROPOS trials. Osteoporos Int 17(12):1781–1793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Federaal Ministerie van Sociale Zaken, Volksgezondheid en Leefmilieu. (Belgium)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2005) Osteoporosis is markedly underdiagnosed: a nationwide study from Denmark. Osteoporos Int 16(2):134–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elffors I et al (1994) The variable incidence of hip fracture in southern Europe: the MEDOS Study. Osteoporos Int 4(5):253–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lofthus CM et al (2001) Epidemiology of hip fractures in Oslo, Norway. Bone 29(5):413–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kanis JA et al (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmö. Osteoporos Int 11(8):669–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singer BR et al (1998) Epidemiology of fractures in 15,000 adults: the influence of age and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(2):243–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brecht JG et al (2003) Pharmacoeconomic analysis of osteoporosis treatment with risedronate. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 23(4):93–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanis JA et al (2000) Risk of hip fracture derived from relative risks: an analysis applied to the population of Sweden. Osteoporos Int 11(2):120–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kanis JA et al (2004) Cost-effectiveness of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 15(11):862–871PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. Br Med J 312(7041):1254–1259Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Looker AC et al (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8(5):468–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klotzbuecher CM et al (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15(4):721–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kanis JA et al (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35(2):375–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Felsenberg D et al (2002) Incidence of vertebral fracture in Europe: results from the European prospective osteoporosis study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 17(4):716–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Report on osteoporosis in the European community-action for prevention. 1998, European Commission-Employment & Social AffairsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zethraeus N (1998) Willingness to pay for hormone replacement therapy. Health Econ 7(1):31–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Life tables, years 1999–2001. Institut National d’Édutes démographiques. 2004Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Johannesson M (1996) Theory and methods of economic evaluation of health care. Dev Health Econ Public Policy 4:1–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tengs TO, Wallace A (2000) One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38(6):583–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Statistics Norway http://www.ssb.no/). 2004
  38. 38.
    Christensen PM et al (2005) Cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in Danish women. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 96(5):387–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Statistics Sweden. Sweden´s Statistical Databases. http://www.scb.se/eng/databaser/ssd.asp
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    Oden A et al (1998) Lifetime risk of hip fractures is underestimated. Osteoporos Int 8(6):599–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kanis JA et al (2003) The components of excess mortality after hip fracture. Bone 32(5):468–473Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parker MJ, Anand JK (1991) What is the true mortality of hip fractures? Public Health 105(6):443–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kanis J et al (2002) Excess mortality after vertebral fracture. WHO Collabortaing centre for metabolic bone diseases: Sheffield, UKGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ISPOR, Pharmacoeconomic guidelines. 2005, http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp
  46. 46.
    TIPOS DE INTERÉS, BANCO DE ESPAÑA/ESTADÍSTICAS COMPLEMENTARIAS. http://www.bde.es/, 2005
  47. 47.
    Zethraeus N et al (1997) The cost of a hip fracture. Estimates for 1,709 patients in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 68(1):13–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zethraeus N et al (2002) Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis related fractures-results from a swedish survey. Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, 512Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    OECD Health Data 2003-A comparative analysis of 30 countries. 2003 [cited; Available from: www.oecd.org/health/healthdata
  50. 50.
    World development indicators-relative prices and exchange rates. 2004 [cited 2004; Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/Table5_7.pdf
  51. 51.
    Kanis JA et al (2001) The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12(5):417–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zethraeus N Strom O, Borgstrom F (2006) What is the risk of institutionalization after hip fracture? Poster at ECCEO, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jönsson B et al (1996) Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in established osteoporosis. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 103:30–38Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kind P et al (1998) Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Br Med J 316(7133):736–741Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lundberg L et al (1999) Health state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. Eur J Public Health 9(3):211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kanis JA et al (2004) The risk and burden of vertebral fractures in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 15(1):20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA (2002) A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporos Int 13(10):768–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Raftery J (2001) NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. Br Med J 323(7324):1300–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Översyn av samhällsekonomiska metoder och kalkylvärden på transportområdet-ASEK Review of cost benefit calculation. Methods and valuations in the transport sector. SIKA Rapport, 2002. 4Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kanis JA, Jönsson B (2002) Economic evaluation of interventions for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 13(10):765–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Macroeconomics and Health: investing in health for economic development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, W.C.o.M.a. Health, Editor. 2001:GenevaGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hart WM et al (2002) Análisis farmacoeconómico del tratamiento de la osteoporosis postmenopáusica con risedronato o alendronato. REEMO 11(3):97–104Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Autier P, Belgian Hip Fracture Study Group et al (2000) Costs induced by hip fractures: a prospective controlled study in Belgium. Osteoporos Int 11(5):373–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ankjaer-Jensen A, Johnell O (1996) Prevention of osteoporosis: cost-effectiveness of different pharmaceutical treatments. Osteoporos Int 6(4):265–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Visentin P, Ciravegna R, Fabris F (1997) Estimating the cost per avoided hip fracture by osteoporosis treatment in Italy. Maturitas 26(3):185–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Andersen L et al (1995) Cost-effectiveness of alendronate for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in Norwegian women. Statens Institutt for Folkhelse: OsloGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dolan P, Torgerson DJ (1998) The cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the United Kingdom female population. Osteoporos Int 8(6):611–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kanis JA (2002) Epidemiology and costs of fractures in the UK: Background document for male osteoporosis model. Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zethraeus N et al (2002) Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis related fractures-results from a Swedish survey. Working paper series in economics and finance, 512. Stockholm: Stockholm School of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Puffer S et al (2004) Health care costs of women with symptomatic vertebral fractures. Bone 35(2):383–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Local Government in Denmark. http://www.kl.dk/240830
  72. 72.
    1. Stockholms stads budgetavräkning. Stadsledningskontorets redovisningsstab 2003 [cited]Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Netten A, Rees T, Harrison G (2002) Unit costs of health and social care. Personal social services research unit: University of Kent. p. http://www.ukc.ac.uk/PSSRU/
  74. 74.
    System BSS Belgian Social Security System. [cited 2005-07-02]; Available from: http://www.riziv.be/insurer/fr/rate/pdf/2004/doctors/raad-20041001-fr.pdf
  75. 75.
    The danish ministry of health. Takstsystem 2001, 2000. ISBN 1395–2528Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    AMeli, L’Assurance Maladie en Ligne 2004 [cited; Available from: http://www.ameli.fr
  77. 77.
    EBM 2000 plus. 2004, Kassenärztliche Vereinigung BayernGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Medi 3 (internet reference,Norwegian private healthcare). 2005 [cited; Available from: http://www.medi3.no
  79. 79.
    Honorato J et al (2004) Pharmacoeconomic analysis of bemiparin and enoxaparin as prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in total knee replacement surgery. Pharmacoeconomics 22(13):885–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Curtis L, Netten A (2004) Unit costs of health and social care. Personal social services research unit: University of Kent. p. http://www.ukc.ac.uk/PSSRU/
  81. 81.
    Osteoporosis in the European community: A call to action: an audit of policy developments since 1998, in international osteoporosis foundation. 2001Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Priser för södra sjukvårdsregionen-Vårdtjänster per klinik. 2003 Universitetssjukhuset i LundGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Stevenson M, Jones ML, Nigris Ed. Assessment report: The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, http://www.nice.org. 2004 [cited
  84. 84.
    centre Belge d’Information Pharmacothérapeutique, the Belgian Pharmacotherapeutic Information Centre. 2005 [cited; Available from: http://www.cbip.be/GGR/MPG/MPG_NH.cfm#MP_2541
  85. 85.
    Lægemiddelkataloget (Denmark). 2004 [cited; Available from: http://www.lmk.dk
  86. 86.
    Vidal-pro (L’information de référence sur le médicament). 2004 [cited; Available from: http://www.vidalpro.net
  87. 87.
    Ministero della salute, Italy. 2004 [cited; Available from: http://www.ministerosalute.it/index.jsp
  88. 88.
    Felleskatalogen. 2004 [cited; Available from: http://www.felleskatalogen.no
  89. 89.
    Base de datos del medicamento. 2004 [cited; Available from: http://pfarmals.portalfarma.com:8080/farma/
  90. 90.
    FASS.se för Förskrivare. [cited 2004-05-06]; Available from: http://www.fass.se
  91. 91.
    British National Formulary 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Ström
    • 1
  • F. Borgström
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. S. Sen
    • 3
  • S. Boonen
    • 4
  • P. Haentjens
    • 5
  • O. Johnell
    • 6
  • J. A. Kanis
    • 7
  1. 1.European Health EconomicsStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Medical Management CentreKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Outcomes Research, Merck & Co., IncWhitehouse StationUSA
  4. 4.Leuven University Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases and Division of Geriatric MedicineKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyAcademisch Ziekenhuis van de Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Department of OrthopaedicsMalmö General HospitalMalmöSweden
  7. 7.Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases (WHO Collaborating Centre)University of Sheffield Medical SchoolSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations