ICON, Stockholm, Sweden.
Frankfurt Center of Bone Disease, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Osteoporos Int. 2019 Sep;30(9):1745-1754. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05064-w. Epub 2019 Jul 3.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
按人口规模估计五个欧洲最大国家(欧盟 5 国)即法国、德国、意大利、西班牙和联合王国(英国)(统称欧盟 5 国)中规定的药物性骨折预防的实际成本效益。
我们分析了欧盟 5 国的骨质疏松症药物销售数据,得出一个与临床实践中规定的骨质疏松症药物混合相对应的假设性干预措施。该治疗方案的费用直接从销售数据中获得,并且通过加权来自已发表的荟萃分析的特定治疗骨折风险降低来估算治疗方案的疗效。随后,我们使用国际骨质疏松基金会(IOF)参考成本效益模型,根据干预措施每增加一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本与不治疗相比,在每个欧盟 5 国中估算成本效益。模型人群包括绝经后妇女,平均年龄 72 岁,患有明确的骨质疏松症(T 评分≤-2.5),其中 23.6%患有先前存在的椎体骨折。模型使用来自文献的国家特定数据进行填充。
与不治疗相比,临床实践中规定的药物性骨折预防在每个国家均具有成本效益(提供更多的 QALY 且成本更低)。敏感性分析结果稳健。
在欧盟 5 国,临床实践中规定的药物性骨折预防具有成本效益。由于绝经后骨质疏松症的诊断不足和治疗不足,从健康经济学的角度来看,通过将治疗扩展到那些目前未接受任何治疗但骨折风险增加的人群,可能会进一步节省成本。