Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 485–497 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Denosumab versus Oral Bisphosphonates for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in the US

  • Anju Parthan
  • Morgan Kruse
  • Nicole Yurgin
  • Joice Huang
  • Hema N. Viswanathan
  • Douglas Taylor
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

In the US, 26 % of women aged ≥65 years, and over 50 % of women aged ≥85 years are affected with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). Each year, the total direct health care costs are estimated to be $US12–18 billion.

Objective

The cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a US third-party payer perspective was evaluated.

Methods

A lifetime cohort Markov model was developed with seven health states: ‘well’, hip fracture, vertebral fracture, ‘other’ osteoporotic fracture, post-hip fracture, post-vertebral fracture, and dead. During each cycle, patients could have a fracture, remain healthy, remain in a post-fracture state or die. Relative fracture risk reductions, background fracture risks, mortality rates, treatment-specific persistence rate, utilities, and medical and drug costs were derived using published sources. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for generic alendronate, denosumab, branded risedronate, and branded ibandronate in the overall PMO population and high-risk subgroups: (a) ≥2 of the following risks: >70 years of age, bone mineral density (BMD) T score less than or equal to −3.0, and prevalent vertebral fracture; and (b) ≥75 years of age. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3 % annually, and all costs were inflated to 2012 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying parameters e.g., efficacies of interventions, costs, utilities, and the medication persistence ratio.

Results

In the overall PMO population, total lifetime costs for alendronate, denosumab, risedronate, and ibandronate were $US64,400, $US67,400, $US67,600 and $US69,200, respectively. Total QALYs were 8.2804, 8.3155, 8.2735 and 8.2691, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for denosumab versus generic alendronate was $US85,100/QALY. Risedronate and ibandronate were dominated by denosumab. In the high-risk subgroup (a), total costs for alendronate, denosumab, risedronate and ibandronate were $US70,400, $US70,800, $US74,000 and $US76,900, respectively. Total QALYs were 7.2006, 7.2497, 7.1969 and 7.1841, respectively. Denosumab had an ICER of $US7,900/QALY versus generic alendronate and dominated all other strategies. Denosumab dominated all strategies in women aged ≥75 years. Base-case results between denosumab and generic alendronate were most sensitive to the relative risk of hip fracture for both drugs and the cost of denosumab.

Conclusion

In each PMO population examined, denosumab represented good value for money compared with branded bisphosphonates. Furthermore, denosumab was either cost effective or dominant compared with generic alendronate in the high-risk subgroups.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Panel. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 2001;285:785–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis JA. WHO Technical Report 2007. University of Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melton LJ III, Chrischilles EA, Cooper C, et al. Perspective: how many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res. 1992;7(9):1005–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Bone health and osteoporosis: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gass M, Dawson-Hughes B. Preventing osteoporosis-related fractures: an overview. Am J Med. 2006;119(4 Suppl 1):S3–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delmas PD, Rizzoli R, Cooper C, Reginster JY. Treatment of patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis is worthwhile. The position of the International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. NEJM. 2005;353:487–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weycker D, Macarios D, Edelsberg J, Oster G. Compliance with drug therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1645–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings SR, San Martin J, McClung MR, et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. NEJM. 2009;361(8):756–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freemantle N, Satram-Hoang S, Tang E-T, et al. Final results of the DAPS (Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction) study: a 24-month, randomized, crossover comparison with alendronate in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(1):317–26.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jonsson B, Strom O, Eisman JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:967–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Potential cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Bone. 2010;47(1):34–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(10):895–911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scotland G, Waugh N, Royle P, McNamee P, Henderson R, Hollick R. Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in post-menopausal women: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):951–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boonen S, Adachi JD, Man Z, et al. Treatment with denosumab reduces the incidence of new vertebral and hip fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(6):1727–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Denosumab (Prolia) Prescribing Information, June 2010I.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK). Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness prepared for the guideline ‘Osteoporosis: assessment of fracture risk and the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in individuals at high risk’. National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care, September 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=download&o=42362.
  18. 18.
    Bone HG, Bolognese MA, Yuen CK, et al. Effects of denosumab treatment and discontinuation on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:972–80.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melton LJ III, Crowson CS, O’Fallon WM. Fracture incidence in Olmsted County, Minnesota: comparison of urban with rural rates and changes in urban rates over time. Osteoporos Int. 1999;9(1):29–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Melton LJ III, Lane AW, Cooper C, et al. Prevalence and incidence of vertebral deformities. Osteoporos Int. 1993;3:113–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM, et al. Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res. 1992;7(2):221–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    http://www.Mortality.org. US Life Tables 2007.
  23. 23.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, et al. Excess mortality after hospitalisation for vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(2):108–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poor G, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM, et al. Determinants of reduced survival following hip fractures in men. Clin Orthop. 1995;319:260–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanis J, et al. Excess mortality after vertebral fracture. Sheffield: WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases; 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parker MJ, Anand JK. What is the true mortality of hip fractures? Public Health. 1991;105(6):443–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, et al. The components of excess mortality after hip fracture. Bone. 2003;32(5):468–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colon-Emeric CS, et al. Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Int Med. 2010;152:380–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, et al. An updated systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(6):853–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Borgstrom F, Johnell O, Kanis JA, et al. Cost effectiveness of raloxifene in the treatment of osteoporosis in Sweden: an economic evaluation based on the MORE study. Pharmocoeconomics. 2004;22(17):1153–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oleksik A, Lips P, Dawson A, et al. Health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women with low BMD with or without prevalent vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15(7):1384–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tosteson AN, Gabriel SE, Grove MR, Moncur MM, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ 3rd. Impact of hip and vertebral fractures on quality-adjusted life years. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(12):1042–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Silverman SL, Minshall ME, Shen W, Harper KD, Xie S. The relationship of health-related quality of life to prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation Study. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(11):2611–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hall SE, Criddle RA, Comito TL, Prince RL. A case-control study of quality of life and functional impairment in women with long-standing vertebral osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1999;9(6):508–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Borgstrom F, Jonsson B, Strom O, et al. 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. 2006;17(12):781–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hanmer J, Lawrence WF, Anderson JP, et al. Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(4):391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marketscan Database Analysis. Data on file-Amgen 2010.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) Data 2006—National Center for Health Statistics: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bentler SE, Liu L, ObrizanM, et al. The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality. Am J Epi. 2009;170(10):1290–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stevenson M, Davis S. Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of pooled alendronate and risedronate, compared with strontium ranelate, raloxifene, edifronate and teriparatide. 2006. http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?0=370643. Accessed 12 May 2008.
  41. 41.
    Healthcare Costs & Utilization Project Database based on US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/.
  42. 42.
    Denosumab Clinical Study Report, Nov 2008.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Redekop WK, Stolk EA, Kok E, et al. Diabetic foot ulcers and amputations: estimates of health utility for use in cost-effectiveness analyses of new treatments. Diabetes Metab. 2004;30(6):549–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ. Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed in a managed care population. Bone. 2006;38(6):922–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Solomon D, Avorn J, Katz JN, et al. Compliance with osteoporosis medications. Arch inter Med. 2005;165(20):2414–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kanis JA, Reginster JY, Kaufman JM, et al. A reappraisal of generic bisphosphonates in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(1):213–21.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boonen S, McClung M, Minisola S, et al. 2009. Effect of denosumab on the incidence of hip, new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures over 3 years among postmenopausal women with higher fracture risk: a subgroup analysis from the FREEDOM study. J Bone Miner Res 24(Suppl 1). http://www.asbmr.org/Meetings/AnnualMeeting/AbstractDetail.aspx?aid=da35831c-de93-4607-8b12-b7fcaf42f45d. Accessed March 23 2012.
  48. 48.
    Inderjeeth CA, Foo ACH, Lai MMY, et al. Efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in managing osteoporosis in the old old: review of the evidence. Bone. 2009;44(5):744–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    McClung MR, Boonen S, Torring O, et al. Effect of denosumab treatment on the risk of fractures in subgroups of women with postmenopausal ostoeoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2011. doi:10.1002/jbmr.536.
  50. 50.
    McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD, et al. Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(5):333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Meadows ES, Klein R, Rousculp MD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. BMC Womens Health. 2007;7(6):1–9.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int. 1998; (Suppl 4)S7–S80.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Liu H, Michaud K, Nayak S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1209–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Physician’s Fee and Coding Guide 2012. MAG Mutual Healthcare Solutions, 2011.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Drug Topics Red Book. Montvale: Thomson Healthcare; 2010.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    AnalySource 2011. WAC Pricing, November 1, 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anju Parthan
    • 1
    • 5
  • Morgan Kruse
    • 1
  • Nicole Yurgin
    • 2
  • Joice Huang
    • 2
    • 4
  • Hema N. Viswanathan
    • 2
  • Douglas Taylor
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.OptumInsightCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.AmgenThousand OaksUSA
  3. 3.Ironwood PharmaceuticalsCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Roche DiagnosticsIndianapolisUSA
  5. 5.SunnyvaleUSA

Personalised recommendations