Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Osteoporos Int. 2019 Jul 3. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05064-w. [Epub ahead of print]

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

Author information

1
ICON, Stockholm, Sweden.
2
Frankfurt Center of Bone Disease, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
3
Philips-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
4
Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
5
Centre for Integrated research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
6
Amgen Europe (GmbH), Suurstoffi 22, P. O. Box 94, CH-6343, Rotkreuz, Switzerland.
7
Amgen Europe (GmbH), Suurstoffi 22, P. O. Box 94, CH-6343, Rotkreuz, Switzerland. bjoerns@amgen.com.

Abstract

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:

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

PMID:
31270592
DOI:
10.1007/s00198-019-05064-w

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center