Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 1745–1754 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological fracture prevention for osteoporosis as prescribed in clinical practice in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom

  • A. Svedbom
  • P. Hadji
  • E. Hernlund
  • R. Thoren
  • E. McCloskey
  • R. Stad
  • B. StollenwerkEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in the five largest European countries (EU5) using the IOF reference cost-effectiveness model. Pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in clinical practice was cost-saving (provided more QALYs at lower costs) compared to no treatment in each of the EU5.

Purpose

To estimate the real-world cost-effectiveness of pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in the five largest European countries by population size: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK) (collectively EU5).

Materials and methods

We analyzed sales data on osteoporosis drugs in each of the EU5 to derive a hypothetical intervention that corresponds to the mix of osteoporosis medication prescribed in clinical practice. The costs for this treatment mix were obtained directly from the sales data, and the efficacy of the treatment mix was estimated by weighing the treatment-specific fracture risk reductions from a published meta-analysis. Subsequently, we estimated the cost-effectiveness using costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) of the intervention compared to no treatment in each of the EU5 using the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) reference cost-effectiveness model. The model population comprised postmenopausal women, mean age 72 years with established osteoporosis (T-score ≤ − 2.5) among whom 23.6% had a prevalent vertebral fracture. The model was populated with country-specific data from the literature.

Results

Pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in clinical practice was cost-saving (provided more QALYs at lower costs) compared to no treatment in each country. The findings were robust in scenario analyses.

Conclusions

Pharmacological fracture prevention as prescribed in clinical practice is cost-saving in each of the EU5. Because of the under-diagnosis and under-treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis, from a health economic perspective, further cost-savings may be reached by expanding treatment to those at increased risk of fracture currently not receiving any treatment.

Keywords

Costs and costs analysis Cost-benefit analysis Cost-effectiveness Osteoporosis Osteoporotic fracture Preventive medicine Practice patterns 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Josefine Redig for quality control and formatting of the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

Björn Stollenwerk and Emma Hernlund designed the study with input from Axel Svedbom, Peyman Hadji, Eugene McCloskey, and Robert Stad. Björn Stollenwerk, Emma Hernlund, and Axel Svedbom developed the cost-effectiveness model, obtained the input data, and executed the analyses with support from Robyn Thoren. Björn Stollenwerk and Axel Svedbom led the interpretation of findings with input from the other authors. Axel Svedbom drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed and revised  this manuscript and approved the decision to submit for publication.

Funding

This study was supported by Amgen Europe GmbH.

Compliance with ethical standards

Financial disclosure

B Stollenwerk and R Stad are Amgen employees and holders of Amgen stocks/options. A Svedbom, E Hernlund, R Thoren were paid consultants to Amgen Europe GmbH through their employment at ICON Clinical Research. ICON Clinical Research has received funding from several pharmaceutical companies involved in the marketing of products for treatment of osteoporosis. P Hadji received research funding and consultancy and lecture fees from the following companies: Amgen, Elli Lilly, Novartis, Gedeon Richter, Pfizer, UCB. E McCloskey has received consultancy and/or speaker’s honoraria and/or research support from ActiveSignal, Amgen, Arthritis Research UK, AstraZeneca, Consilient Healthcare, GSK, Hologic, I3 Innovus, Internis, IOF, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, MRC, Norvartis, Pfizer, Roch, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Synexus, Tethys, UCB, Unilever, and Warner Chilcott.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Odén A, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Johansson H (2015) Burden of high fracture probability worldwide: secular increases 2010–2040. Osteoporos Int 26(9):2243–2248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the international Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harvey NC, McCloskey EV, Mitchell PJ, Dawson-Hughes B, Pierroz DD, Reginster J-Y, Rizzoli R, Cooper C, Kanis JA (2017) Mind the (treatment) gap: a global perspective on current and future strategies for prevention of fragility fractures. Osteoporos Int 28(5):1507–1529CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanis JA, Svedbom A, Harvey N, McCloskey EV (2014) The osteoporosis treatment gap. J Bone Miner Res 29(9):1926–1928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khosla S, Shane E (2016) A crisis in the treatment of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 31(8):1485–1487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laius O, Pisarev H, Maasalu K, Kõks S, Märtson A (2017) Trends in and relation between hip fracture incidence and osteoporosis medication utilization and prices in Estonia in 2004–2015. Arch Osteoporos 12(1):48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van der Velde R, Wyers C, Teesselink E, Geusens P, van den Bergh JP, de Vries F, Cooper C, Harvey N, van Staa T (2017) Trends in oral anti-osteoporosis drug prescription in the United Kingdom between 1990 and 2012: variation by age, sex, geographic location and ethnicity. Bone 94:50–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Järvinen TL, Sievänen H, Kannus P, Jokihaara J, Khan KM (2011) The true cost of pharmacological disease prevention. BMJ 342:d2175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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):205–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Si L, Winzenberg T, Palmer A (2014) A systematic review of models used in cost-effectiveness analyses of preventing osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 25(1):51–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zethraeus N, Borgström F, Ström O, Kanis J, Jönsson B (2007) Cost-effectiveness of the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis—a review of the literature and a reference model. Osteoporos Int 18(1):9–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jonsson B, Strom 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-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 59:105–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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):485–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cummings SR, Martin JS, McClung MR, Siris ES, Eastell R, Reid IR, Delmas P, Zoog HB, Austin M, Wang A (2009) Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 361(8):756–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, De Laet C, Delmas P, Eisman JA, Fujiwara S, Kroger H, Mellstrom D (2005) Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures. J Bone Miner Res 20(7):1185–1194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kanis J, Johnell O, De Laet C, Johansson H, Odén A, Delmas P, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, Kroger H (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35(2):375–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA, Berger M (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15(4):721–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Jonsson B, Dawson A, Dere W (2000) Risk of hip fracture derived from relative risks: an analysis applied to the population of Sweden. Osteoporos Int 11(2):120–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00004173 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borgstrom F, Jonsson B, Strom O, Kanis JA (2006) An economic evaluation of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporosis in a Swedish setting: based on the results of the SOTI and TROPOS trials. Osteoporos Int 17(12):1781–1793.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0193-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singer B, McLauchlan G, Robinson C, Christie J (1998) Epidemiology of fractures in 15 000 adults: the influence of age and gender. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 80(2):243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Piscitelli P, Tarantino U, Chitano G, Argentiero A, Neglia C, Agnello N, Saturnino L, Feola M, Celi M, Raho C (2011) Updated incidence rates of fragility fractures in Italy: extension study 2002–2008. Clinical cases in mineral and bone. metabolism 8(3):54Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Darbà 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.s78349 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Briot K, Maravic M, Roux C (2015) Changes in number and incidence of hip fractures over 12 years in France. Bone 81:131–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bleibler F, Rapp K, Jaensch A, Becker C, König H-H (2014) Expected lifetime numbers and costs of fractures in postmenopausal women with and without osteoporosis in Germany: a discrete event simulation model. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):284.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-284 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kanis J, Johnell O, Oden A, Dawson A, De Laet C, Jonsson B (2001) Ten year probabilities of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD and diagnostic thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12(12):989–995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kanis J, Johnell O, Oden A, Sernbo I, Redlund-Johnell I, Dawson A, De Laet C, Jonsson B (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmö. Osteoporos Int 11(8):669–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kanis J, Oden A, Johnell O, Jonsson B, De Laet C, Dawson A (2001) The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12(5):417–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Freemantle N, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, Gitlin M, Radcliffe H, Shepherd S, Roux C (2013) Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 24(1):209–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Excellence NIfC (2007) Final appraisal determination. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Allen MR, Burr DB (2011) Bisphosphonate effects on bone turnover, microdamage, and mechanical properties: what we think we know and what we know that we don't know. Bone 49(1):56–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bagger YZ, Tankó LB, Alexandersen P, Ravn P, Christiansen C (2003) Alendronate has a residual effect on bone mass in postmenopausal Danish women up to 7 years after treatment withdrawal. Bone 33(3):301–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY (2017) The projected public health and economic impact of vitamin D fortified dairy products for fracture prevention in France. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 18:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2017.1375406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scotti L, Arfe A, Zambon A, Merlino L, Corrao G (2014) Cost-effectiveness of enhancing adherence with oral bisphosphonates treatment in osteoporotic women: an empirical approach based on healthcare utilisation databases. BMJ Open 4(3):e003758.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003758 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gutierrez L, Roskell N, Castellsague J, Beard S, Rycroft C, Abeysinghe S, Shannon P, Robbins S, Gitlin M (2011) Study of the incremental cost and clinical burden of hip fractures in postmenopausal women in the United Kingdom. J Med Econ 14(1):99–107.  https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2010.547967 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gutierrez L, Roskell N, Castellsague J, Beard S, Rycroft C, Abeysinghe S, Shannon P, Gitlin M, Robbins S (2012) Clinical burden and incremental cost of fractures in postmenopausal women in the United Kingdom. Bone 51(3):324–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2012.05.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2017) Bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis TA464Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O, Lidgren L, Ponzer S, Svensson O, Abdon P, Ornstein E, Lunsjo K, Thorngren KG, Sernbo I, Rehnberg C, Jonsson B (2006) Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in Sweden. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 17(5):637–650.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-0015-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gustavsson A, Jonsson L, McShane R, Boada M, Wimo A, Zbrozek AS (2010) Willingness-to-pay for reductions in care need: estimating the value of informal care in Alzheimer's disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 25(6):622–632.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2385 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    Svedbom A, Borgstom F, Hernlund E, Strom O, Alekna V, Bianchi ML, Clark P, Curiel MD, Dimai HP, Jurisson M, Kallikorm R, Lember M, Lesnyak O, McCloskey E, Sanders KM, Silverman S, Solodovnikov A, Tamulaitiene M, Thomas T, Toroptsova N, Uuskula A, Tosteson ANA, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2017) Quality of life for up to 18 months after low-energy hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fractures-results from the ICUROS. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 29:557–566.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4317-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B (2004) Excess mortality after hospitalisation for vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 15(2):108–112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1516-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oglesby AK (2003) The components of excess mortality after hip fracture. Bone 32(5):468–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Parker MJ, Anand JK (1991) What is the true mortality of hip fractures? Public Health 105(6):443–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Poor G, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon WM, Melton LJ, 3rd (1995) Determinants of reduced survival following hip fractures in men. Clin Orthop Relat Res (319):260-265Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Looker AC, Orwoll ES, Johnston JRCC, Lindsay RL, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Calvo MS, Harris TB, Heyse SP (1997) Prevalence of low femoral bone density in older US adults from NHANES III. J Bone Miner Res 12(11):1761–1768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Li L, Roddam A, Gitlin M, Taylor A, Shepherd S, Shearer A, Jick S (2012) Persistence with osteoporosis medications among postmenopausal women in the UK general practice research database. Menopause 19(1):33–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICONStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Frankfurt Center of Bone DiseaseFrankfurt/MainGermany
  3. 3.Philips-University of MarburgMarburgGermany
  4. 4.Centre for Metabolic Bone DiseasesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  5. 5.Centre for Integrated research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Bone ResearchUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  6. 6.Amgen Europe (GmbH)RotkreuzSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations