Cost-Minimization Study Comparing Annual Infusion of Zoledronic Acid or Weekly Oral Alendronate in Women With Low Bone Mineral Density

Chávez‐Valencia, Venice; Arce-Salinas, César Alejandro; Espinosa-Ortega, Fabricio

doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2013.12.001

Cited by 6 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we found that some studies including both direct and indirect costs were not defined as having a societal perspective, although this was the original information stated by authors reported in Table 1; no adjustment and correction were made for this. Nineteen studies applied a lifetime horizon while others considered truncated time horizons [10][11][12][13][14][15]. A Markov model was used in 21 studies, consisting of a Markov cohort model (n = 12) or a Markov microsimulation model (n = 9).…”

Section: Idenɵficaɵonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) were used as the outcome in these 23 studies with a model. The remaining four studies used no model [10][11][12]17]. One out of the four conducted a cost-minimization analysis [10], in which costs were compared.…”

Section: Idenɵficaɵonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining four studies used no model [10][11][12]17]. One out of the four conducted a cost-minimization analysis [10], in which costs were compared. Another two studies [11,12] used bone mineral density (BMD) as the final outcome and ICER was calculated based on the differences of costs and BMD of different interventions.…”

Section: Idenɵficaɵonmentioning

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

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: Idenɵficaɵonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Idenɵficaɵonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…The remaining 8 trials fulfilled the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, and are listed in Table 1. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Characteristics of Included Trials As shown in Table 1, the 8 trials were published from 2007 to 2016 and involved a total of 1863 patients. The mean age of the patients ranged from 57 to 71 years and 79.5% of the patients were female.…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and Safety of Annual Infusion of Zoledronic Acid and Weekly Oral Alendronate in the Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis: A Meta‐Analysis

Wang

Zeng

et al. 2023

The Journal of Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to reveal the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with alendronate in patients with primary osteoporosis. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from the establishment of each database to April 2022 for comparative studies on the topic, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, and 2 authors individually extracted information and data concerning study design, baseline characteristics, bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, and adverse events (AEs). We identified 8 eligible trials, including 1863 participants. Pooled estimates demonstrated that, compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid showed no significant difference in increasing the BMD of the lumbar spine after 1 year (SMD = −0.03, 95%CI −0.15 to 0.09, I2 = 0.41%) or after 2 years (SMD = 0.16, 95%CI −0.12 to 0.43, I2 = 63%), and the BMD of the total hip after 1 year (SMD = −0.08, 95%CI −0.31 to 0.14, I2 = 64%) or after 2 years (SMD = 0.05, 95%CI −0.21 to 0.32, I2 = 61%). No significant difference in improving bone turnover markers, including serum C‐terminal cross‐linking telopeptide of type‐1 collagen, urine N‐terminal cross‐linking telopeptide of type‐1 collagen, and serum procollagen type‐1 N‐terminal propeptide, were found, whereas significantly higher total AE rates (RR = 2.27, 95%CI 1.60 to 3.21, I2 = 75%) were recorded within 3 days of infusion, but some lower AE rates, particularly of gastrointestinal AEs (RR = 0.6, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83, I2 = 37%), were noted after 3 days of infusion. Compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid has achieved comparable therapeutic results in the treatment of primary osteoporosis in increasing BMD and reducing bone turnover marker levels. Zoledronic acid showed a better safety profile than alendronate with long‐term use, especially with regards to gastrointestinal‐related AEs.

show abstract

“…It is more costeffective compared with weekly or daily regimens, with a high impact on fracture prevention 8 . The superiority in terms of cost-effectiveness over oral bisphosphonates has been also shown for zoledronic acid (once annually) 9 . Although comparative data regarding compliance or persistence between oral bisphosphonates and zoledronic acid are not currently available, a general patient preference exists for annual infusions of zoledronic acid over weekly bisphosphonates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Compliance with osteoporosis medications – an underestimated determinant of anti-fracture efficacy

Anagnostis¹,

Karras

2015

Current Medical Research and Opinion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-Minimization Study Comparing Annual Infusion of Zoledronic Acid or Weekly Oral Alendronate in Women With Low Bone Mineral Density

Cited by 6 publications

References 25 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

Efficacy and Safety of Annual Infusion of Zoledronic Acid and Weekly Oral Alendronate in the Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis: A Meta‐Analysis

Compliance with osteoporosis medications – an underestimated determinant of anti-fracture efficacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About