Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Once-Yearly Injection of Zoledronic Acid For The Treatment of Osteoporosis In Japan

Moriwaki, Kensuke; Mouri, Mitsuko; Hagino, Hiroshi

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.1121

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is similar to the study of Parthan et al [21] and Yoshizawa et al [29]. In addition, Moriwaki et al [30] reported that the relative risk of hip fracture with zoledronic acid had a relatively strong effect on the estimated incremental net monetary benefit; compared to alendronate, zoledronic acid could be a cost-effective option if the relative risk was equal to 0.34 (lower limit).…”

Section: Drug Effect On the Risk Of Fracturessupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Oral bisphosphonates were included in 11 studies [13-15, 18, 21, 22, 24-26, 29, 30] and compared with other active interventions. There were three studies [16,20,28] considering sequential therapies as comparators, while six studies [15,17,[30][31][32]36] made the comparison between active osteoporotic drugs and calcium/ vitamin D 3 and ten studies [12, 18, 19, 23-25, 27-29, 33, 34] included no treatment as the comparator. Treatment duration in most studies was similar to randomized controlled trials, indications, or guidelines (e.g., 3 or 5 years for anti-resoptive agents, 12-24 months for anabolic agents).…”

Section: Idenɵficaɵonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies indicated that the increase of baseline fracture risk and the age of patients were associated with favorable results of cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoporotic drugs. For instance, Moriwaki et al [30] indicated that the incremental costs and incremental QALYs of zoledronic acid compared with alendronate tended to be small, with an increase of T-scores. Moreover, Chokchalermwong et al [23] reported that, compared to no treatment, the ICER of bisphosphonates was 130,049 THB per QALY when starting the drug from the age of 65 years, with a BMD T-score ≤ − 2.5.…”

Section: Baseline Fracture Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the cost of a generic/biosimilar was estimated to be 15% of the brand (i.e., 85% less), the annual cost of teriparatide would be $6490 for a 65-year-old cohort; or if the cost of a generic/biosimilar was estimated to be 35% of the brand (i.e., 65% less), the annual cost of teriparatide would be $11,461 for a 75-year-old cohort; the ICERs of sequential teriparatide/alendronate were below the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. Moriwaki et al [30] also reported that if the cost of zoledronic acid was lowered by 30%, zoledronic acid could be a cost-effective option compared with alendronate. Additionally, Karnon et al [14] indicated that there is a near-zero probability that denosumab is cost effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared with alendronate at the current price; however, if the price of denosumab was reduced by 50%, the incremental cost per QALY gained falls to $50,068.…”

Section: Drug Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Updated Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Drugs for Osteoporosis

Cornelissen

Silverman

et al. 2020

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies. Objectives This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them. Methods A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles. Results The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvement was observed for most studies, which could potentially be explained by the fact that most studies were published prior to the osteoporosis-specific guideline. Greater adherence to guideline recommendations was expected for future studies. The quality of reporting was also suboptimal, especially with regard to treatment side effects, treatment effect after discontinuation, and medication adherence. Conclusions This updated review provides an overview of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses. In comparison with a previous review, recent economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs were conducted in more countries and included more active drugs and sequential therapy as interventions/comparators. The updated economic evidence could help decision makers prioritize health interventions and the unmet/unreported quality issues indicated by the osteoporo...

show abstract

Section: Drug Effect On the Risk Of Fracturessupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Idenɵficaɵonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Baseline Fracture Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Drug Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Updated Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Drugs for Osteoporosis

Cornelissen

Silverman

et al. 2020

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Health economic evaluation studies in osteoporosis are few in the Asia-Pacific region. Robust studies have been conducted in a few countries including Singapore [95], China [96,97], Japan [98,99], and Australia [100]. These studies have employed different modeling strategies and have explored cost-effectiveness of fracture intervention thresholds as well as of various osteoporosis medications.…”

Section: Health Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Asia Pacific Consortium on Osteoporosis (APCO) Framework: clinical standards of care for the screening, diagnosis, and management of osteoporosis in the Asia-Pacific region

Chan

Mitchell²,

Amphansap

et al. 2021

Osteoporos Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Guidelines for doctors managing osteoporosis in the Asia-Pacific region vary widely. We compared 18 guidelines for similarities and differences in five key areas. We then used a structured consensus process to develop clinical standards of care for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis and for improving the quality of care. Purpose Minimum clinical standards for assessment and management of osteoporosis are needed in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region to inform clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to improve osteoporosis care. We present the framework of these clinical standards and describe its development. Methods We conducted a structured comparative analysis of existing CPGs in the AP region using a "5IQ" model (identification, investigation, information, intervention, integration, and quality). One-hundred data elements were extracted from each guideline. We then employed a four-round Delphi consensus process to structure the framework, identify key components of guidance, and develop clinical care standards. Results Eighteen guidelines were included. The 5IQ analysis demonstrated marked heterogeneity, notably in guidance on risk factors, the use of biochemical markers, self-care information for patients, indications for osteoporosis treatment, use of fracture risk assessment tools, and protocols for monitoring treatment. There was minimal guidance on long-term management plans or on strategies and systems for clinical quality improvement. Twenty-nine APCO members participated in the Delphi process, resulting in consensus on 16 clinical standards, with levels of attainment defined for those on identification and investigation of fragility fractures, vertebral fracture assessment, and inclusion of quality metrics in guidelines. Conclusion The 5IQ analysis confirmed previous anecdotal observations of marked heterogeneity of osteoporosis clinical guidelines in the AP region. The Framework provides practical, clear, and feasible recommendations for osteoporosis care and can be adapted for use in other such vastly diverse regions. Implementation of the standards is expected to significantly lessen the global burden of osteoporosis.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Once-Yearly Injection of Zoledronic Acid For The Treatment of Osteoporosis In Japan

Cited by 2 publications

References 21 publications

An Updated Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Drugs for Osteoporosis

An Updated Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Drugs for Osteoporosis

Development of the Asia Pacific Consortium on Osteoporosis (APCO) Framework: clinical standards of care for the screening, diagnosis, and management of osteoporosis in the Asia-Pacific region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About