PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 895–911 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Denosumab Compared with Oral Bisphosphonates in the Treatment of Post-Menopausal Osteoporotic Women in Belgium

Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Denosumab has recently been shown to be well tolerated, to increase bone mineral density (BMD) and to significantly reduce the risk of hip, vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in the FREEDOM (Fracture REduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis every 6 Months) trial. It is becoming increasingly important to evaluate not only the therapeutic value of a new drug but also the cost effectiveness compared with the most relevant treatment alternatives.

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates (branded and generic drugs) in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women in Belgium.

Methods: Cost effectiveness of 3 years of treatment with denosumab was compared with branded risedronate and branded and generic alendronate using an updated version of a previously validated Markov microsimulation model. The model was populated with relevant cost, adherence and epidemiological data for Belgium from a payer perspective and the results were presented as costs per QALY gained (€, year 2009 values). Analyses were performed in populations (aged ≥60 years) in which osteoporosis medications are currently reimbursed in many European countries, i.e. those with BMD T-score of −2.5 or less or prevalent vertebral fracture. Patients receiving denosumab were assumed to have a 46% lower risk of discontinuation than those receiving oral bisphosphonates, and the effect of denosumab after treatment cessation was assumed to decline linearly to zero over a maximum of 1 year.

Results: Denosumab was cost effective compared with all other therapies, assuming a willingness to pay of ¬40 000 per QALY gained. In particular, denosumab was found to be cost effective compared with branded alendronate and risedronate at a threshold value of ¬30 000 per QALY and denosumab was dominant (i.e. lower cost and greater effectiveness) compared with risedronate from the age of 70 years in women with a T-score of −2.5 or less and no prior fractures. The cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with generic alendronate was estimated at ¬38 514, h22 220 and ¬27 862 per QALY for women aged 60, 70 and 80 years, respectively, with T-scores of −2.5 or less. The equivalent values were ¬37 167, ¬19 718 and h19 638 per QALY for women with prevalent vertebral fractures.

Conclusion: This study suggests, on the basis of currently available data, that denosumab is a cost-effective strategy compared with oral bisphosphonates (including generic alendronate) for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women, aged ≥60 years in Belgium. Denosumab therefore appears to have the potential to become a first-line treatment for post-menopausal women with osteoporosis. However, further studies would be required to evaluate the long-term safety and adherence of denosumab in real-world clinical practice as well as head-to-head effectiveness compared with oral bisphosphonates.

References

  1. 1.
    Hiligsmann M, Bruyere O, Ethgen O, et al. Lifetime absolute risk of hip and other osteoporotic fracture in Belgian women. Bone 2008; 43 (6): 991–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture inMalmo. Osteoporos Int 2000; 11 (8): 669–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2006; 17 (12): 1726–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O. Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 2005; 16 (3): 229–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kanis J, Burlet N, Cooper C, et al. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2008; 19 (4): 399–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Imaz I, Zegarra P, Gonzalez-Enriquez J, et al. Poor bisphosphonate adherence for treatment of osteoporosis increases fracture risk: systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2010 Nov; 21 (11): 1943–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rabenda V, Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Poor adherence to oral bisphosphonate treatment and its consequences: a review of the evidence. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2009; 10 (14): 2303–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siris ES, Selby PL, Saag KG, et al. Impact of osteoporosis treatment adherence on fracture rates in North America and Europe. Am J Med 2009; 122 Suppl. 2: S3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cramer JA, Amonkar MM, Hebborn A, et al. Compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate dosing regimens among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21 (9): 1453–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Bruyère O, et al. The clinical and economic burden of non-adherence with osteoporosis medications. Health Policy 2010; 96: 170–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rossini M, Bianchi G, Di Munno O, et al. Determinants of adherence to osteoporosis treatment in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 2006; 17 (6): 914–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sambrook P. Compliance with treatment in osteoporosis patients: an ongoing problem. Aust Fam Physician 2006; 35 (3): 135–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cummings SR, Martin JS, McClung MR, et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (8): 756–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Medicines Agency. CHMP assessment report for Prolia. London: European Medicines Agency, 2009 Mar 18 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/001120/WC500093529.pdf [Accessed 2010 July 27]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kendler DL, Bessette L, Hill CD, et al. Preference and satisfaction with a 6-month subcutaneous injection versus a weekly tablet for treatment of low bone mass. Osteoporos Int 2010; 21 (5): 837–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C. A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther 2001; 23 (8): 1296–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, O’Brien B, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cleemput I, van Wilder P, Huybrechts M, et al. Belgian methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: toward standardization of drug reimbursement requests. Value Health 2009; 12 (4): 441–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hiligsmann M, Ethgen O, Bruyere O, et al. Development and validation of a Markov microsimulation model for the economic evaluation of treatments in osteoporosis. Value Health 2009; 12 (5): 687–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dere W, Avouac B, Boers M, et al. Recommendations for the health economics analysis to be performed with a drug to be registered in prevention or treatment of osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 1998; 63 (2): 93–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reginster JY, Gillet P, Ben Sedrine W, et al. Direct costs of hip fractures in patients over 60 years of age in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15 (5): 507–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Autier P, Haentjens P, Bentin J, et al. Costs induced by hip fractures: a prospective controlled study in Belgium. Belgian Hip Fracture Study Group. Osteoporos Int 2000; 11 (5): 373–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gabriel SE, Tosteson AN, Leibson CL, et al. Direct medical costs attributable to osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2002; 13 (4): 323–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Melton 3rd LJ, Gabriel SE, Crowson CS, et al. Costequivalence of different osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2003; 14 (5): 383–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bouee S, Lafuma A, Fagnani F, et al. Estimation of direct unit costs associated with non-vertebral osteoporotic fractures in five European countries. Rheumatol Int 2006; 26 (12): 1063–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hiligsmann M, Ethgen O, Bruyere O, et al. An economic evaluation of quantitative ultrasonometry as pre-screening test for the identification of patients with osteoporosis. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2008; 16: 429–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hiligsmann M, Ethgen O, Richy F, et al. Utility values associated with osteoporotic fracture: a systematic review of the literature. Calcif Tissue Int 2008; 82 (4): 288–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, et al. The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporos Int 2001; 12 (5): 417–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, et al. Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 2000; 15 (4): 721–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 1996; 312 (7041): 1254–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. Risk of hip fracture according to the World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia and osteoporosis. Bone 2000; 27 (5): 585–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, et al. Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 1998; 8 (5): 468–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boonen S, Kaufman JM, Reginster JY, et al. Patient assessment using standardized bone mineral density values and a national reference database: implementing uniform thresholds for the reimbursement of osteoporosis treatments in Belgium. Osteoporos Int 2003; 14 (2): 110–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, et al. Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures. J Bone Miner Res 2005; 20 (7): 1185–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 2004; 35 (2): 375–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, et al. Fracture risk following an osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 2004; 15 (3): 175–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Institute of Statistics. Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information. Mortality tables 2004 and 2002–2004. Brussels: National Institute of Statistics, 2008Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oden A, Dawson A, Dere W, et al. Lifetime risk of hip fractures is underestimated. Osteoporos Int 1998; 8 (6): 599–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, et al. Mortality after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2004; 15 (1): 38–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC, et al. Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int 2000; 11 (7): 556–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, et al. Excess mortality after hospitalisation for vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 2004; 15 (2): 108–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, et al. The components of excess mortality after hip fracture. Bone 2003; 32 (5): 468–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lips P, van Schoor NM. Quality of life in patients with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2005; 16 (5): 447–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Silverman SL, Minshall ME, Shen W, et al. 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): 2611–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tosteson AN, Hammond CS. Quality-of-life assessment in osteoporosis: health-status and preference-based measures. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (5): 289–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Belgian Federal Government. FPS economy, SMEs, independent professions and energy: consumer price indexes. 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://economie.fgov.be/fr/statistiques/chiffres/economie/prix_consommation/indices_prix_consommation/index.jsp [Accessed 2010 Mar 1]Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 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’. London: NICE, 2008 Sep [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11621/42362/42362.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 1]Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rabenda V, Mertens R, Fabri V, et al. Adherence to bisphosphonates therapy and hip fracture risk in osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 2008; 19 (6): 811–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ. Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed care population. Bone 2006; 38 (6): 922–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Belgian Center for Pharmacotherapeutic Information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbip.be/GGR/MPG/MPG_NI.cfm#MP_04090 [Accessed 2010 Apr 1]
  52. 52.
    Greenspan SL, Emkey RD, Bone HG, et al. 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 2002; 137 (11): 875–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stock JL, Bell NH, Chesnut 3rd CH, et al. 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 1997; 103 (4): 291–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Strom O, Borgstrom F, Sen SS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the treatment of postmenopausal women in 9 European countries: an economic evaluation based on the fracture intervention trial. Osteoporos Int 2007; 18 (8): 1047–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Potential cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Bone 2010; 47 (1): 34–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    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 (4): 972–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lekkerkerker F, Kanis JA, Alsayed N, et al. Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis: a need for study. Osteoporos Int 2007; 18 (10): 1311–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Gathon HJ, et al. Potential clinical and economic impact of nonadherence with osteoporosis medications. Calcif Tissue Int 2010; 86 (3): 202–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Strom O, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA, et al. Incorporating adherence into health economic modelling of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2009; 20 (1): 23–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cramer JA, Roy A, Burrell A, et al. Medication compliance and persistence: terminology and definitions. Value Health 2008; 11 (1): 44–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hiligsmann M, Gathon HJ, Bruyere O, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by treatment: the impact of medication adherence. Value Health 2010; 13 (4): 394–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Strom O, Landfeldt E, Robbins S, et al. Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis and fracture risk: the Swedish adherence register analysis (SARA) [abstract no. P109]. Osteoporos Int 2010; 21 Suppl. 1: S29Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cramer JA, Gold DT, Silverman SL, et al. A systematic review of persistence and compliance with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2007; 18 (8): 1023–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kendler DL, McClung MR, Freemantle N, et al. on behalf of the DAPS Investigators. Adherence, preference, and satisfaction of postmenopausal women taking denosumab and alendronate. Osteoporos Int. Epub 2010 Sep 9Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lewiecki EM. Is denosumab better than alendronate in the treatment of osteoporosis? Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2009; 5 (2): 72–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Brown JP, Prince RL, Deal C, et al. Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial. J Bone Miner Res 2009; 14: 1–34Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. Valeurs seuils pour le rapport coût-efficacitéen soins de santé. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Bruxelles: centre fédéral d’expertise des soins de santé (KCE), 2008. KCE Reports 100B (D/2008/10.273Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001; 323: 1300–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tosteson AM, Malton LJ, Dawson-Hughes B, et al. National Osteoporosis Foundation Guide Committee. Costeffective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int 2008; 4: 437–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Cranney A, Guyatt G, Griffith L, et al. Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis: IX. Summary of meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Rev 2002; 23 (4): 570–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ringe JD, Moller G. Differences in persistence, safety and efficacy of generic and original branded once weekly bisphosphonates in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis: 1-year results of a retrospective patient chart review analysis. Rheumatol Int 2009; 30 (2): 213–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sheehy O, Kindundu CM, Barbeau M, et al. Differences in persistence among different weekly oral bisphosphonate medications. Osteoporos Int 2009; 20 (8): 1369–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bobba RS, Beattie K, Parkinson B, et al. Tolerability of different dosing regimens of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis and malignant bone disease. Drug Saf 2006; 29 (12): 1133–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    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. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (17): 1153–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hiligsmann M, Bruyere O, Reginster JY. Cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate versus risedronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women aged over 75 years. Bone 2010; 46 (2): 440–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hiligsmann M, Bruyere O, Reginster JY. Cost-utility of long-term strontium ranelate treatment for postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 2010; 21 (1): 157–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Brookhart MA, Avorn J, Katz JN, et al. Gaps in treatment among users of osteoporosis medications: the dynamics of noncompliance. Am J Med 2007; 120 (3): 251–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 2008; 19 (4): 385–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, et al. FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 2009; 44 (5): 734–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Johansson H, Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, et al. A FRAX® model for the assessment of fracture probability in Belgium. Osteoporos Int 2011 Feb; 22 (2): 453–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 2002; 17 (7): 1237–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pharmacoeconomics Research UnitHEC-ULg Management School, University of LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations