Cost–effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women

References

• Kanis JA, Odén A, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Wahl DA, Cooper C; IOF Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life. A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporos. Int. 23(9), 2239–2256 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colón-Emeric CS et al. Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann. Intern. Med. 152(6), 380–390 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lips P, van Schoor NM. Quality of life in patients with osteoporosis. Osteoporos. Int. 16(5), 447–455 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnell O, Kanis JA, Odén A et al. Mortality after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos. Int. 15(1), 38–42 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ström O, Borgström F, Kanis JA et al. Osteoporosis: burden, health care provision and opportunities in the EU: a report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch. Osteoporos. 6(1–2), 59–155 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reginster JY. Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. BMJ 330(7496), 859–860 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabenda V, Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Poor adherence to oral bisphosphonate treatment and its consequences: a review of the evidence. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 10(14), 2303–2315 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siris ES, Selby PL, Saag KG, Borgström F, Herings RM, Silverman SL. Impact of osteoporosis treatment adherence on fracture rates in North America and Europe. Am. J. Med. 122(Suppl. 2), S3–S13 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnevale V, Nieddu L, Romagnoli E et al. Osteoporosis intervention in ambulatory patients with previous hip fracture: a multicentric, nationwide Italian survey. Osteoporos. Int. 17(3), 478–483 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liel Y, Castel H, Bonneh DY. Impact of subsidizing effective anti-osteoporosis drugs on compliance with management guidelines in patients following low-impact fractures. Osteoporos. Int. 14(6), 490–495 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Rabenda V, Vanoverloop J, Fabri V et al. Low incidence of anti-osteoporosis treatment after hip fracture. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 90(10), 2142–2148 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtis JR, Yun H, Lange JL et al. Does medication adherence itself confer fracture protection? an investigation of the healthy adherer effect in observational data. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 64(12), 1855–1863 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Boonen A, Rabenda V, Reginster JY. The importance of integrating medication adherence into pharmacoeconomic analyses: the example of osteoporosis. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 12(2), 159–166 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, McGowan B, Bennett K, Barry M, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of poor adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications in Ireland. Value Health 15(5), 604–612 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Bruyère O, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of non-adherence with oral bisphosphonates in osteoporotic patients. Health Policy 96(2), 170–177 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings SR, San Martin J, McClung MR et al.; FREEDOM Trial. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 361(8), 756–765 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jönsson B, Ström O, Eisman JA et al. Cost–effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos. Int. 22(3), 967–982 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freemantle N, Satram-Hoang S, Tang ET et al.; DAPS Investigators. Final results of the DAPS (Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction) study: a 24-month, randomized, crossover comparison with alendronate in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos. Int. 23(1), 317–326 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendler DL, McClung MR, Freemantle N et al.; DAPS Investigators. Adherence, preference, and satisfaction of postmenopausal women taking denosumab or alendronate. Osteoporos. Int. 22(6), 1725–1735 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Sculpher M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (3rd Edition). Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 313(7052), 275–283 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Reginster J. Cost–effectiveness of denosumab compared with generic alendronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Value Health 13, A309–A310 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Reginster J. Cost–effectiveness of denosumab compared with generic alendronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Osteoporosis Int. 22, S112 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Reginster J. Cost–effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Osteoporosis Int. 21, S30 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Reginster J. Cost–utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Osteoporosis Int. 20, S16 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Ström O, Macarios D, Badamgarav E, Borgstrom F, Tosteson A, Kanis J. A UK denosumab cost–effectiveness model incorporating FRAX and Adherence. J. Bone Miner. Res. 24, S141 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Potential cost–effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Bone 47(1), 34–40 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Cost–effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics 29(10), 895–911 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scotland G, Waugh N, Royle P, McNamee P, Henderson R, Hollick R. Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in post-menopausal women: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 29(11), 951–961 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ström O, Macarios D, Badamgarav E et al. Cost–effectiveness model for denosumab incorporating FRAX and adherence in a UK Setting. Osteoporosis Int. 20, S20 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Davies A, Compston J, Ferguson S, McCloskey E, Shearer A, Taylor A. Cost–effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Scotland. Value Health 14, A310 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Parthan A, Deflin M, Yurgin N, Huang J, Taylor D. Cost–effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates in the Unites States for post-menopausal osteoporosis. Value Health 15, A38 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Jiang Y, Hay J. The cost–effectiveness of denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in the setting of the Unites States. Value Health 15, A38 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Beaubrun A, Daugherty J. Cost–utility analysis of denosumab versus raloxifene for treating osteoporosis in post-menopausal women in the United States. Value Health 14, A129 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Darba J, Kaskens L, Sorio F. Cost–utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain. Value Health 14, A311 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Cristino J, Canhão H, Perelman J, Santos C, Pereira J. Cost–utility analysis of denosumab versus standard care in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Portugal. Value Health 14, A128 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Athanasakis K, Karampli E, Hollandezos M et al. A cost–effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Greece. Value Health 14, A138 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Waugh N, Royle P, Scotland G, Henderson R, Hollick R, McNamee P. Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Health Technol. Assess. 15(Suppl. 1), 51–59 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Ström O, Borgström F, Sen SS et al. Cost–effectiveness of alendronate in the treatment of postmenopausal women in 9 European countries – an economic evaluation based on the fracture intervention trial. Osteoporos. Int. 18(8), 1047–1061 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosteson AN, Melton LJ 3rd, Dawson-Hughes B et al.; National Osteoporosis Foundation Guide Committee. Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos. Int. 19(4), 437–447 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Gathon HJ, Reginster JY. Development and validation of a Markov microsimulation model for the economic evaluation of treatments in osteoporosis. Value Health 12(5), 687–696 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zethraeus N, Borgström F, Ström O, Kanis JA, Jönsson B. Cost–effectiveness of the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis – a review of the literature and a reference model. Osteoporos. Int. 18(1), 9–23 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 12(4), 409–418 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanis JA, Cooper C, Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Reginster JY, Rizzoli R. Partial adherence: a new perspective on health economic assessment in osteoporosis. Osteoporos. Int. 22(10), 2565–2573 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClung M, Boonen S, Törring O et al. Effect of denosumab treatment on the risk of fractures in subgroups of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. J. Bone Miner. Res. 27(1), 211–218 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Boonen S, Adachi JD, Man Z et al. Treatment with denosumab reduces the incidence of new vertebral and hip fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 96(6), 1727–1736 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cranney A, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Wells G, Tugwell P, Rosen C; Osteoporosis Methodology Group and The Osteoporosis Research Advisory Group. Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. IX: Summary of meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr. Rev. 23(4), 570–578 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bone HG, Bolognese MA, Yuen CK et al. Effects of denosumab treatment and discontinuation on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 96(4), 972–980 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med. Decis. Making 28(1), 21–32 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Vale L. Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA 287(21), 2809–2812 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleurence RL, Spackman DE, Hollenbeak C. Does the funding source influence the results in economic evaluations? A case study in bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 28(4), 295–306 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar