Cost-effectiveness of implementing guidelines for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in Japan
- 153 Downloads
A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the clinical guideline for the treatment for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO). The treatment indication for GIO in the current Japanese clinical guidelines is likely to be cost-effective except for the limited patients who are at low risk for fracture.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the clinical guideline for the treatment for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system.
A patient-level state transition model was developed to predict lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in postmenopausal Japanese women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using glucocorticoid (GC). An annual discount rate of 2% for both costs and QALYs was applied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 5-year alendronate therapy compared with no therapy was estimated with different combinations of the risk factors such as starting age (45, 55, or 65), femoral neck BMD (% young adult mean (YAM) of 70%, 75%, or 80%), dose of GC (2.5, 5, or 10 mg per day), and the presence of previous fracture (yes or no).
For 55-year-old women using GC with a BMD of 75% of YAM, the ICER ranged from $10,958 to $ 29,727 per QALY. Scenario analyses indicated that the lower age, the lower BMD, the higher dose of GC, and the presence of previous fracture associated with lower ICER. The best-case scenario was 45-year-old women with a BMD of 70% of YAM, GC dose of 10 mg per day, and previous fracture, and resulted in healthcare cost-savings. The worst-case scenario was 65-year-old women with a BMD of 80% of YAM, GC dose of 2.5 mg per day, and no previous fracture, and resulted in the ICER of $66,791 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses in the worst-case scenario showed that the annual discount rate for costs and health benefit had the strong influence on the estimated ICER. Although the ICER was influenced by other parameters such as disutility due to vertebral fracture, efficacy of alendronate, and so on, the ICERs remained more than $50,000 per QALY.
The cost-effectiveness of preventive alendronate therapy for postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using GC is sensitive to age, BMD, GC dose, and the presence of previous fracture. Our analysis suggested that the treatment indication for postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis using GC in the current Japanese clinical guidelines is likely to be cost-effective except for the limited patients who are at low risk for fracture.
KeywordsCost-effectiveness analysis Fracture prevention Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis Health economics
This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) Grant Number 26870670 from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)/Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
KM has received speaker honoraria, consulting fees, or reimbursement for attending meetings from Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp., Amgen Astellas BioPharma K.K., Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd., Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. HF has received speaker honoraria, consulting fees, or reimbursement for attending meetings from Astellas Pharma Ltd., Nippon Becton Dickinson Company, Ltd., MSD, Eli Lilly Japan, Abbott, and KYORIN Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
- 7.Japan Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (2016) National health expenditure. Tokyo, Japan. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/37-21c.html. (in Japanese). Accessed 18 March 2017
- 8.Suzuki Y, Nawata H, Soen S, Fujiwara S, Nakayama H, Tanaka I, Ozono K, Sagawa A, Takayanagi R, Tanaka H, Miki T, Masunari N, Tanaka Y (2014) Guidelines on the management and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis of the Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research: 2014 update. J Bone Miner Metab 32(4):337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Soen S, Fukunaga M, Sugimoto T, Sone T, Fujiwara S, Endo N, Gorai I, Shiraki M, Hagino H, Hosoi T, Ohta H, Yoneda T, Tomomitsu T, Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research and Japan Osteoporosis Society Joint Review Committee for the Revision of the Diagnostic Criteria for Primary Osteoporosis (2013) Diagnostic criteria for primary osteoporosis: year 2012 revision. J Bone Miner Metab 31:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL et al (2010) Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 29.Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, Applegate WB, Barrett-Connor E, Musliner TA, Palermo L, Prineas R, Rubin SM, Scott JC, Vogt T, Wallace R, Yates AJ, LaCroix A (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the fracture intervention trial. Jama 280:2077–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Hayashi Y (2007) Economical viewpoint for treatment of osteoporosis. Nihon Rinsho 65(Suppl 9):609–614 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 31.Murad MH, Drake MT, Mullan RJ, Mauck KF, Stuart LM, Lane MA, Abu Elnour NO, Erwin PJ, Hazem A, Puhan MA, Li T, Montori VM (2012) Comparative Effectiveness of Drug Treatments to Prevent Fragility Fractures: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97(6):1871–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.(2014) National Health Insurance Price List. Jihou Press, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 33.(2014) Medical Fee Schedule. Igaku-tsushin-sya, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 35.Hagino H (2002) Cost-effectiveness of the treatment for osteoporosis. Nihon Rinsho 60(Suppl 3):645–654 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 36.Negami S (2011) Comparison of cost for distal radius fractures before and after DPC revision by using EVE. JSSIGH 20:43 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 37.(2014) Reward for nursing care. Igaku-tsushin-sya, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 40.Fukuda T, Shiroiwa T, Ikeda S et al (2013) Guideline for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies in Japan. J Natl Inst Public Health 62:625–640Google Scholar
- 41.Japan Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (2010) Life table for Japanese. Tokyo, Japan. https://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/GL08020103.do?_toGL08020103_&listID=000001111987&requestSender=dsearch. (in Japanese). Accessed 12 July 2018
- 42.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2017) Bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis (TA464). London United Kingdom. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta464/chapter/1-Recommendations. Accessed 12 July 2018
- 44.World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield. FRAX WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool. Japan - The probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture in women. http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/charts/Chart_JAP_ost_wom_bmd.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2018