Yeh Eric, Saeedian Matia, Badaracco Jack
Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
BluePath Solutions, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Arch Osteoporos. 2025 Jun 30;20(1):85. doi: 10.1007/s11657-025-01564-x.
In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, 10-year denosumab was estimated to be cost-effective vs 5 years of oral alendronate, a 2-year drug holiday, and subsequently 3-years of alendronate with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,574 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated in most of the scenario simulations.
A previous economic analysis estimated that 5-year denosumab was cost-effective compared with 5-year alendronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) in the United States (US). Emerging literature has provided data on the long-term clinical benefits of denosumab. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness analysis was updated to understand the potential implications of a longer treatment duration (10-year) with denosumab vs generic oral alendronate or no treatment from a US third-party payer perspective.
A lifetime Markov cohort model was used to compare 10-year denosumab treatment to 5 years of alendronate, followed by a 2-year drug holiday and, then an additional 3 years of alendronate. The target population consisted of PMO women in the US with a starting age of 72 years. Recent publicly available data, including epidemiology, treatment efficacy, persistence, and costs, were used to inform model inputs. Scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to account for uncertainty.
Estimated mean total lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, were $81,003 and 8.035 for denosumab, and $75,358 and 7.977 for alendronate, resulting in denosumab having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,574 per QALY gained. At a threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the PSA demonstrated that denosumab was considered cost effective in 62.1% of simulations. Denosumab was dominant over no treatment.
Ten-year denosumab treatment would be cost-effective compared with 5 years of alendronate, followed by a 2-year drug holiday and 3 years of alendronate at the threshold of $150,000. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated across most scenarios with robust PSA results.
在患有骨质疏松症的绝经后女性中,估计10年的地诺单抗治疗与5年的口服阿仑膦酸钠、2年的药物假期,随后再进行3年的阿仑膦酸钠治疗相比具有成本效益,每获得一个质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比估计为97,574美元。在大多数情景模拟中都证明了成本效益。
先前的一项经济分析估计,在美国,5年的地诺单抗治疗与5年的阿仑膦酸钠治疗相比,对于绝经后骨质疏松症(PMO)女性具有成本效益。新出现的文献提供了关于地诺单抗长期临床益处的数据。因此,从美国第三方支付方的角度,更新成本效益分析以了解使用地诺单抗进行更长疗程(10年)治疗与使用普通口服阿仑膦酸钠或不治疗相比的潜在影响。
使用终身马尔可夫队列模型将10年的地诺单抗治疗与5年的阿仑膦酸钠治疗进行比较,随后是2年的药物假期,然后再进行3年的阿仑膦酸钠治疗。目标人群为美国72岁开始的PMO女性。使用包括流行病学、治疗效果、持续性和成本等近期公开可用的数据来为模型输入提供信息。进行情景分析和概率敏感性分析(PSA)以考虑不确定性。
地诺单抗的估计平均终身总成本和质量调整生命年(QALY)分别为81,003美元和8.035,阿仑膦酸钠分别为75,358美元和7.977,导致地诺单抗每获得一个QALY的增量成本效益比为97,574美元。在每QALY 150,000美元的阈值下,PSA表明地诺单抗在62.1%的模拟中被认为具有成本效益。地诺单抗相对于不治疗具有优势。
在每QALY 150,000美元的阈值下,10年的地诺单抗治疗与5年的阿仑膦酸钠治疗,随后是2年的药物假期和3年的阿仑膦酸钠治疗相比具有成本效益。在大多数情景中都证明了成本效益,PSA结果稳健。