Top

Osteoporosis International

Published in:

01-05-2022 | Osteoporosis | Review

Cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab for osteoporosis: a systematic review

Authors: Y. Wan, F. Zeng, H. Tan, Y. Lu, Y. Zhang, L. Zhao, R. You

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 5/2022

Abstract

Summary

This paper systematically reviewed and assessed all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis. Denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis.

Introduction

There are many pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for osteoporosis. However, the corresponding reviews are outdated or incomplete and need to be updated and refined. This article aims to systematically review and evaluate all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies of denosumab for osteoporosis.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed utilizing PubMed, EMBASE(Ovid), Proquest(EconLit), Chongqing VIP, WanFang Database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify full-text articles published before September 2021. The quality of full-text articles was evaluated by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards(CHEERS) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases International Osteoporosis Foundation guideline(ESCEO-IOF).

Results

In total, 21 full-text articles were eligible for inclusion. Denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporosis was not dominant compared to zoledronate and teriparatide. However, denosumab was dominant compared with strontium ranelate, raloxifene, and ibandronate in patients over 65 years. The probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective or dominant were more than 85% compared with no treatment and risedronate in patients aged over 70 years. Compared to alendronate, the highest rate of denosumab dominance occurred in patients aged 65 to 75 years, at about 65%. Most of the articles had higher CHEERS scores than ESCEO-IOF scores (converted into percentages).

Conclusions

The cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis was influenced by multiple factors. Generally, denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the transparency, generalization, and quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis.

Available only for authorised users

Kanis, J. (2007) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. WHO Scientific Group Technical Report. https://www.who.int/chp/topics/rheumatic/en/index.html Accessed 26 July 2021.

Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY (2019) Executive summary of the European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 104(3):235–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-018-00512-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Curtis EM, van der Velde R, Moon RJ, van den Bergh JPW, Geusens P, de Vries F, van Staa TP, Cooper C, Harvey NC (2016) Epidemiology of fractures in the United Kingdom 1988–2012: variation with age, sex, geography, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Bone 87:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2016.03.006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Parthan A, Kruse M, Yurgin N, Huang J, Viswanathan HN, Taylor D (2013) Cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis in the US. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11(5):485–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0047-8CrossRefPubMed

Chinese Medical Association (2019) Epidemiological survey of osteoporosis in China and “Healthy Bones” special action results released. Chinese J Osteoporos Bone Miner Res 12(4):317–318. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-2591.2019.04.001CrossRef

Boyle WJ, Simonet WS, Lacey DL (2003) Osteoclast differentiation and activation. Nature 423(6937):337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01658CrossRefPubMed

Morizio P, Burkhart JI, Ozawa S (2018) Denosumab: a unique perspective on adherence and cost-effectiveness compared with oral bisphosphonates in osteoporosis patients. Ann Pharmacother 52(10):1031–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028018768808CrossRefPubMed

Chau D, Becker DL, Coombes ME, Ioannidis G, Adachi JD, Goeree R (2012) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Canada. J Med Econ 15(Suppl 1):3–14. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.737393CrossRefPubMed

Darba J, Kaskens L, Vilela FS, Lothgren M (2015) Cost-utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 7:105–117. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S78349CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Yates CJ, Chauchard MA, Liew D, Bucknill A, Wark JD (2015) Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service. J Clin Densitom 18(2):150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2015.01.003CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mori T, Crandall CJ, Ganz DA (2017) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus oral alendronate for elderly osteoporotic women in Japan. Osteoporos Int 28(5):1733–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-3940-4CrossRefPubMed

12.

Yoshizawa T, Nishino T, Okubo I, Yamazaki M (2018) Cost-effectiveness analysis of drugs for osteoporosis treatment in elderly Japanese women at high risk of fragility fractures: comparison of denosumab and weekly alendronate. Arch Osteoporos 13(1):94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0509-6CrossRefPubMed

13.

Le QA (2019) Patient-level modeling approach using discrete-event simulation: a cost-effectiveness study of current treatment guidelines for women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 25(10):1089–1095. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.10.1089CrossRefPubMed

14.

Karnon J, Shafie AS, Orji N, Usman SK (2016) What are we paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of patented denosumab and generic alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Australia. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 14:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-016-0060-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Coyle D (2019) Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis consistent with the revised economic evaluation guidelines for Canada. MDM Policy Pract 4(1):2381468318818843. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468318818843CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Pongchaiyakul C, Nanagara R, Songpatanasilp T, Unnanuntana A (2020) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for high-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Thailand. J Med Econ 23(7):776–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2020.1730381CrossRefPubMed

17.

Li N, Cornelissen D, Silverman S, Pinto D, Si L, Kremer I, Bours S, de Bot R, Boonen A, Evers S, van den Bergh J, Reginster J-Y, Hiligsmann M (2021) An updated systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 39(2):181–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00965-9CrossRefPubMed

18.

Azharuddin M, Adil M, Khan RA, Ghosh P, Kapur P, Sharma M (2020) Systematic evidence of health economic evaluation of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a quality appraisal. Osteoporos Sarcopenia 6(2):39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afos.2020.05.006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Hiligsmann M, Evers SM, Sedrine WB, Kanis JA, Ramaekers B, Reginster J-Y, Silverman S, Wyers CE, Boonen A (2015) A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 33(3):205–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0231-1CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hiligsmann M, Boonen A, Dirksen CD, Sedrine WB, Reginster J-Y (2013) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 13(1):19–28. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.12.76CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chokchalermwong S, Lochid-Amnuay S, Kapol N, Wiroonpochid E, Ongphiphadhanakul B (2019) Economic evaluation of drug treatment for fracture prevention in thai postmenopausal women with osteoporosis without fracture history. J Med Assoc Thailand 102(1):62–70

22.

Marques A, Lourenço Ó, Ortsäter G, Borgström F, Kanis JA, da Silva JA (2016) Cost-effectiveness of intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis based on FRAX(®) in Portugal. Calcif Tissue Int 99(2):131–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-016-0132-8CrossRefPubMed

23.

Jönsson B, Ström O, Eisman JA, Papaioannou A, Siris ES, Tosteson A, Kanis JA (2011) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 22(3):967–982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1424-xCrossRefPubMed

24.

Davis S, Simpson E, Hamilton J, James MMS, Rawdin A, Wong R, Goka E, Gittoes N, Selby P (2020) Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 24(29):v–313. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24290CrossRef

25.

Parthan A, Kruse M, Agodoa I, Silverman S, Orwoll E (2014) Denosumab: a cost-effective alternative for older men with osteoporosis from a Swedish payer perspective. Bone 59:105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2013.11.002CrossRefPubMed

26.

Silverman S, Agodoa I, Kruse M, Parthan A, Orwoll E (2015) Denosumab for elderly men with osteoporosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the US payer perspective. J Osteoporos 2015:627631. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/627631CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Ström O, Jönsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Intervention thresholds for denosumab in the UK using a FRAX®-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Osteoporos Int 24(4):1491–1502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2115-6CrossRefPubMed

28.

Hiligsmann M, Maggi S, Veronese N, Sartori L, Reginster J-Y (2021) Cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Italy. Osteoporos Int. 32(3):595–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05802-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Bae G, Kwon H, An J, Park J (2018) Cost-utility analysis of denosumab versus alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis in South Korea. Value Health 21(Supplement 2):S82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.613CrossRef

30.

Garcia Perlaza J, Arocho R (2016) Cost-utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Colombia. Value Health 19(7):A541CrossRef

31.

Ding Y, Hay J (2014) Cost-effectiveness comparison of denosumab and zoledronic acid in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Value Health 17(3):A47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.281CrossRef

32.

Parthan A, Kruse MM, Agodoa I, Tao CY, Silverman SL, Orwoll E (2013) Is denosumab cost-effective compared to oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of male osteoporosis (MOP) in sweden? Value Health 16(3):A223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1130CrossRef

33.

Parthan, A., M. Kruse, I. Agodoa, S. Silverman, and E. Orwoll (2013) Denosumab for elderly men with osteoporosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the us payer perspective. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 28(SUPPL. 1).

34.

Arocho R, Rivera Hurtado R, Salinas Escudero G (2013) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) women in mexico at high risk of fractures and intolerant to oral bisphosphonates. Value Health 16(3):A225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1141CrossRef

35.

Parthan A, Deflin MM, Yurgin N, Huang J, Taylor DC (2012) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates in the united states for post-menopausal osteoporosis (PMO). Value Health 15(4):A38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.215CrossRef

36.

Lundkvist J, Lothgren M, Badamgarav E, Freyschyss B (2012) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of elderly women with post-menopausal osteoporosis in Sweden. Value Health 15(7):A445–A446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.1391CrossRef

37.

Jiang Y, Hay J (2012) The cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in the setting of the United States. Value Health 15(4):A38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.216CrossRef

38.

Chang WL, Ling YL, Huang KC, Tang CH (2012) An economic evaluation of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in a Taiwanese setting. Value Health 15(7):A673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.416CrossRef

39.

Barbosa EG, Machado M, Araujo GTBD, Etto H, Fonseca M, Olimpio A (2012) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in preventing osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women from the private health care setting perspective in Brazil. Value Health 15(7):A446–A447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.1396CrossRef

40.

Davies A, Compston J, Ferguson S, McClosky E, Shearer A, Taylor A (2011) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Scotland. Value Health 14(7):A310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.430CrossRef

41.

Darba J, Kaskens L, Sorio F (2011) Cost-utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain. Value Health 14(7):A311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.434CrossRef

42.

Cristino J, Canhao H, Perelman J, Santos C, Pereira J (2011) Cost-utility analysis of denosumab versus standard care in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Portugal. Value Health 14(3):A128CrossRef

43.

Beaubrun AC, Daugherty JB (2011) Cost-utility analysis of denosumab versus raloxifene for treating osteoporosis in post-menopausal women in the United States. Value Health 14(3):A129CrossRef

44.

Athanasakis K, Karampli E, Hollandezos M, Papagiannopoulou V, Badamgarav E, Intorcia M, Kyriopoulos J (2011) A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Greece. Value Health 14(7):A308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.421CrossRef

45.

Parthan, A., M. Deflin, N. Yurgin, J. Huang, P.R. Ho, A. Wang, and D. Taylor (2012) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in a population 75 years or older in the us. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 27(SUPPL. 1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2312-y.

46.

Strom O, Macarios D, Badamgarav E, Borgstrom F, Jonsson B, Tosteson A, Kanis J (2009) Cost-effectiveness model for denosumab incorporating Frax (R) and adherence in a UK setting. Osteoporos Int 20:20–20CrossRef

47.

Scotland G, Waugh N, Royle P, McNamee P, Henderson R, Hollick R (2011) Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in post-menopausal women: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 29(11):951–961. https://doi.org/10.2165/11589310-000000000-00000CrossRefPubMed

48.

Stolshek B, Kruse M, Yurgin N, Huang J, Ho PR, Wang A, Parthan A, Taylor D (2013) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs. zoledronic acid in a population 75 years or older in the US. Osteoporos Int 24(1):S137–S138

49.

Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY (2011) Cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics 29(10):895–911. https://doi.org/10.2165/11539980-000000000-00000CrossRefPubMed

50.

Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY (2010) Potential cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Bone 47(1):34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2010.03.009CrossRefPubMed

51.

de Waure, C., M.L. Specchia, C. Cadeddu, S. Capizzi, S. Capri, M.L. Di Pietro, M.A. Veneziano, M.R. Gualano, F. Kheiraoui, T. Giuseppe La, N. Nicolotti, A. Sferrazza, and W. Ricciardi (2014) The prevention of postmenopausal osteoporotic fractures: results of the health technology assessment of a new antiosteoporotic drug. Biomed Res Int. 2014https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/975927

52.

Caro JJ, Möller J (2016) Advantages and disadvantages of discrete-event simulation for health economic analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 16(3):327–329. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2016.1165608CrossRefPubMed

53.

Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY, Tosteson ANA, Bukata SV, Saag KG, Gold DT, Halbout P, Jiwa F, Lewiecki EM, Pinto D, Adachi JD, Al-Daghri N, Bruyère O, Chandran M, Cooper C, Harvey NC, Einhorn TA, Kanis JA, Kendler DL, Messina OD, Rizzoli R, Si L, Silverman S (2019) Recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis: outcomes of an experts’ consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the US branch of the International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 30(1):45–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4744-xCrossRefPubMed

54.

Fleurence RL, Spackman DE, Hollenbeak C (2010) Does the funding source influence the results in economic evaluations? A case study in bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 28(4):295–306. https://doi.org/10.2165/11530530-000000000-00000CrossRefPubMed

55.

Mori T, Crandall CJ, Fujii T, Ganz DA (2021) Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate for older osteoporotic women in Japan. Arch Osteoporos 16(1):113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-021-00956-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab for osteoporosis: a systematic review
Authors: Y. Wan
F. Zeng
H. Tan
Y. Lu
Y. Zhang
L. Zhao
R. You
Publication date: 01-05-2022
Publisher: Springer London
Keywords: Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis
Denosumab
Denosumab
Published in: Osteoporosis International / Issue 5/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-021-06268-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab for osteoporosis: a systematic review

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2022

Response to letter to the editor

Osteoporosis and the long-term risk of peripheral artery disease: a population-based longitudinal follow-up study in Taiwan

Effectiveness of denosumab for fracture prevention in real-world postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study

Frailty and osteoporosis in patients with hip fractures under the age of 60—a prospective cohort of 218 individuals

Trabecular bone score and its association with Cobb angle kyphosis in older men: a cross-sectional study for the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study

Snyder-Robinson syndrome: differential diagnosis of osteogenesis imperfecta