The cost-effectiveness of risedronate in the UK for the management of osteoporosis using the FRAX®

Abstract

Risedronate is a cost-effective agent for the treatment of established osteoporosis (osteoporosis and a prior fragility fracture) in women from the age of 50 years and older and above 65 years in women with osteoporosis alone. The results support the treatment recommendations in recent UK guidelines for osteoporosis.

Corrigendum: A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures

“…However, only seven of these considered a UK setting. [137][138][139][140][141][142][143] Given the large number of published articles identified from this single systematic review, it was decided to limit the review to those papers reporting cost-effectiveness analyses for a UK setting as they would be more applicable to the decision problem defined in Chapter 2. None of the consultee submissions contained a de novo economic evaluation, so the review of existing cost-effectiveness evidence is limited to published sources.…”

“…Six of the included studies [137][138][139][140][141]146 were in postmenopausal women, with the remaining two being in populations with steroid-induced osteoporosis. 142,143 Three studies 137 Two studies 140,142 explicitly reported using a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective, while a further three studies [137][138][139] reported using a health-care perspective and one reported a societal perspective. 146 The remaining two studies 141,143 did not explicitly report their perspective although many of the costs used were taken from Stevenson et al 140 which used a NHS and PSS perspective.…”

“…146 The remaining two studies 141,143 did not explicitly report their perspective although many of the costs used were taken from Stevenson et al 140 which used a NHS and PSS perspective. Discounting consistent with the current NICE reference case 144 (3.5% for both costs and QALYs) was applied in four of the studies, [137][138][139]146 whereas alternative discounting at rates (6% for costs and 1.5% for QALYs) were used in the remaining four papers. [140][141][142][143] The time horizon varied from 6 years to a lifetime horizon or age of 100 years.…”

“…The remaining studies used various sources including personal communication and pre-exiting literature, with two studies 137,138 quoting the same source, Stevenson et al…”

“…140,141,143 Seven studies split utility multipliers for fractures into those for the year of fracture and those in subsequent years. [137][138][139][140][141][142][143] The remaining study split multipliers for fractures into those for the year of fracture and those in the year following fracture and those in subsequent years. 141,143 used data from a retrospective analysis of patient notes rather than RCT evidence, as required by the NICE reference case.…”