UNLABELLED: The cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene was compared to placebo in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK from a healthcare perspective using FRAX® for both fracture risks and for treatment efficacy. Cost/QALY differences were explained to a large extent by differences in fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: In cost-effectiveness modelling of osteoporosis treatments, the fracture risk has traditionally been calculated with risk adjustments based on age, bone mineral density and prior fracture. However, knowledge of additional clinical risk factors contributes to fracture risk assessment as demonstrated by the FRAX® tool. Bazedoxifene, a new selective estrogen receptor modulator for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis, has been shown in a phase III clinical trial to reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures in women. In an analysis using FRAX®, the efficacy of bazedoxifene was greater in patients with higher fracture risk. METHODS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene compared to placebo in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK from a healthcare perspective using FRAX®. A Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate the FRAX® risk factors. FRAX® produces relative risks for hip fractures and major osteoporotic fractures. Patients were given a 5-year intervention, reducing the risk of fractures in a risk-dependent manner. The effect of treatment on fractures was assumed to decline linearly over 5 years after the intervention. RESULTS: There are large cost/quality-adjusted life year variations between countries in the European setting studied. The base case values ranged from cost saving (Sweden) to EUR 105,450 (Spain) in 70-year-old women with a T-score of -2.5 SD and a prior fracture. CONCLUSION: Bazedoxifene can be a cost-effective treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. The variability between countries was explained to a large extent by differences in fracture risk, and the estimated cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the population's FRAX®-estimated probability of major osteoporotic fracture.
UNLABELLED: The cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene was compared to placebo in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK from a healthcare perspective using FRAX® for both fracture risks and for treatment efficacy. Cost/QALY differences were explained to a large extent by differences in fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: In cost-effectiveness modelling of osteoporosis treatments, the fracture risk has traditionally been calculated with risk adjustments based on age, bone mineral density and prior fracture. However, knowledge of additional clinical risk factors contributes to fracture risk assessment as demonstrated by the FRAX® tool. Bazedoxifene, a new selective estrogen receptor modulator for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis, has been shown in a phase III clinical trial to reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures in women. In an analysis using FRAX®, the efficacy of bazedoxifene was greater in patients with higher fracture risk. METHODS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene compared to placebo in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK from a healthcare perspective using FRAX®. A Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate the FRAX® risk factors. FRAX® produces relative risks for hip fractures and major osteoporotic fractures. Patients were given a 5-year intervention, reducing the risk of fractures in a risk-dependent manner. The effect of treatment on fractures was assumed to decline linearly over 5 years after the intervention. RESULTS: There are large cost/quality-adjusted life year variations between countries in the European setting studied. The base case values ranged from cost saving (Sweden) to EUR 105,450 (Spain) in 70-year-old women with a T-score of -2.5 SD and a prior fracture. CONCLUSION:Bazedoxifene can be a cost-effective treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. The variability between countries was explained to a large extent by differences in fracture risk, and the estimated cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the population's FRAX®-estimated probability of major osteoporotic fracture.
Authors: O Johnell; J A Kanis; A Odén; I Sernbo; I Redlund-Johnell; C Petterson; C De Laet; B Jönsson Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2003-10-30 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Mickaël Hiligsmann; Silvia M Evers; Wafa Ben Sedrine; John A Kanis; Bram Ramaekers; Jean-Yves Reginster; Stuart Silverman; Caroline E Wyers; Annelies Boonen Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: John A Kanis; Nicholas C Harvey; Cyrus Cooper; Helena Johansson; Anders Odén; Eugene V McCloskey Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: David A Turner; Rebekah Fong Soe Khioe; Lee Shepstone; Elizabeth Lenaghan; Cyrus Cooper; Neil Gittoes; Nicholas C Harvey; Richard Holland; Amanda Howe; Eugene McCloskey; Terence W O'Neill; David Torgerson; Richard Fordham Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 6.741