The cost-effectiveness of the treatment of high risk women with osteoporosis, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia in Sweden

Summary This paper assessed the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of high risk women with osteoporosis, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia in Sweden, using one model and a societal perspective. Cost-effective scenarios were found in all these chronic disorders. These findings are of relevance for decisions on the efficient allocation of health care resources. Introduction There is a need to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of treatment of osteoporosis from a societal perspective and to relate this to the CE of interventions in other disease areas. This is of relevance for decisions on the efficient allocation of health care resources within and between disease areas. The purpose of the paper was to estimate the CE of the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis and to put that into the perspective of treating hypertension and hyperlipidaemia. The CE was assessed for different high risk female populations aged 50–80 years. Methods The estimation of CE was based on a model populated with data for Sweden. Results Compared to no intervention, a 5-year treatment of osteoporosis, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia, is cost effective for most of the assessed high risk female populations. The cost per gained quality adjusted life year (QALY) for the treatment of a 70-year-old woman never exceeded SEK 330,000 (US$ 44,000), which is generally judged as an acceptable cost for a gained QALY. Conclusions The study demonstrates that it is possible to produce reliable estimates of the CE of treatments in different disease areas within the context of a single model.     

The cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the management of osteoporosis

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK has recently issued health economic appraisals for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fracture that are more restrictive than previous guidelines for the management of osteoporosis despite a marked reduction of the cost of intervention. The aim of the present study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of the bisphosphonate, alendronate for the prevention and treatment of fractures associated with osteoporosis. A second aim was to investigate reasons for any disparities in cost-effectiveness between our findings and the NICE appraisals. We compared the effects of alendronate 70 mg weekly by mouth for 5 years with no treatment in postmenopausal women with clinical risk factors for fracture and computed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using a lifetime simulation model based on Markov cohort methodology. A sensitivity analysis examined other common interventions. Using a threshold of pound sterling 30,000 and pound sterling 20,000 per quality of life-year (QALY) gained to determine cost-effectiveness, alendronate was cost-effective for the primary prevention of fracture in women with osteoporosis irrespective of age as was treatment of women with a prior fragility fracture irrespective of BMD. Cost-effective scenarios were also found in women with strong risk factors for fracture with a bone mineral density value above the threshold for osteoporosis. The results were robust over reasonable assumptions in sensitivity analysis. We conclude that alendronate is a cost-effective agent for the prevention and treatment of fractures associated with osteoporosis. These findings, suitable for informing practice guidance, contrast with recent appraisals from NICE.     

Effect and Offset of Effect of Treatments for Hip Fracture on Health Outcomes

We investigated the cost-effectiveness of treatments that reduce the risk of hip fracture using a computer simulation model. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using a threshold value for cost-effectiveness of $30.000/QALY gained. The baseline simulations assumed a 5-year intervention that reduced the risk of hip fracture by 50% during the intervention period, and an effect which reversed to the pretreatment risk during the next 5 years. Sensitivity analyses inlcuded the effects of age, different fracture risks, and different treatment costs and duration of therapeutic effect once treatment was stopped. Cost-effectiveness was critically dependent upon absolute risk determined by the age and the relative risk of hip fracture at any given age. Reasonable cost-effectiveness was shown even with relatively high intervention costs for women with a risk about twice the average at the age of 70 or more years. Cost-effectiveness was critically dependent upon the assumptions made concerning offset of effect of intervention after the end of treatment. Where no residual effect was assumed, it was difficult to show cost-effectiveness from any intervention except for the most effective and least expensive. Conversely, cost-effectiveness improved considerably where effectiveness persisted for a longer time. These studies support the view that intervention in the elderly with agents affecting skeletal metabolism alone may be preferred to such interventions at the time of the menopause, and that offset time, hitherto poorly characterized, is a critical component of cost-effectiveness, particularly in younger women. Received: 26 May 1998 / Accepted: 8 February 1999     

An economic evaluation of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporosis in a Swedish setting

INTRODUCTION: Strontium ranelate is a new therapy for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis that has been shown in two phase III clinical trials (the Spinal Osteoporosis Therapeutic Intervention [SOTI] and the Treatment Of Peripheral OSteoporosis Study [TROPOS] trials) to reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures at the vertebral, non-vertebral and hip level in postmenopausal women. The aim of this study was to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal Swedish patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was adapted to fit patients corresponding to the patients in the SOTI and TROPOS clinical trials. The model was populated with Swedish cost and epidemiological data. In the base case, the cost-effectiveness was estimated for 69-year old women with low bone mineral density (BMD) and prevalent vertebral fractures (SOTI) and for 77-year old women with low BMD (TROPOS). The cost-effectiveness analysis had a societal perspective. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained of strontium ranelate patients compared to no treatment patients was estimated at SEK 472,586 and SEK 259,643, including costs in added life years, based on the SOTI and the TROPOS trials, respectively. Excluding cost in added life years, the cost per QALY gained was estimated at SEK 336,420 (SOTI) and SEK 165,680 (TROPOS). In subgroup analyses, in patients 74 years and older with a T-score lower than -2.4 and patients older than 80 years of age, strontium ranelate was found to be cost saving compared to no treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The results in the base case analyses and the sensitivity analyses of this study indicate that, compared to no treatment, strontium ranelate is cost-effective in the treatment of postmenopausal women with low BMD.     

Greater first year effectiveness drives favorable cost-effectiveness of brand risedronate versus generic or brand alendronate: modeled Canadian analysis

The RisedronatE and ALendronate (REAL) study provided a unique opportunity to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses based on effectiveness data from real-world clinical practice. Using a published osteoporosis model, the researchers found risedronate to be cost-effective compared to generic or brand alendronate for the treatment of Canadian postmenopausal osteoporosis in patients aged 65 years or older. INTRODUCTION: The REAL study provides robust data on the real-world performance of risedronate and alendronate. The study used these data to assess the cost-effectiveness of brand risedronate versus generic or brand alendronate for treatment of Canadian postmenopausal osteoporosis patients aged 65 years or older. METHODS: A previously published osteoporosis model was populated with Canadian cost and epidemiological data, and the estimated fracture risk was validated. Effectiveness data were derived from REAL and utility data from published sources. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was estimated from a Canadian public payer perspective, and comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The base case analysis found fewer fractures and more QALYs in the risedronate cohort, providing an incremental cost per QALY gained of $3,877 for risedronate compared to generic alendronate. The results were most sensitive to treatment duration and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The REAL study provided a unique opportunity to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses based on effectiveness data taken from real-world clinical practice. The analysis supports the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to generic or brand alendronate and the use of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporotic Canadian women aged 65 years or older with a BMD T-score < or =-2.5.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing Hip Fracture in the General Female Population

The aims of this study were to determine whether treatments that reduce the incidence of hip fracture might be used in the general female population rather than screening or case-finding strategies. Cost-effectiveness, measured as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using threshold values for cost-effectiveness of $20.000 or $30.000/QALY gained, was assessed during and after treatment using a computer simulation model applied to the female population of Sweden. The base case assumed a 5-year intervention that reduced the risk of hip fracture by 35% during the treatment period, and an effect that reversed to the pretreatment risk during the next 5 years. Sensitivity analyses included the effects of age, different treatment costs and effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness was critically dependent upon the age and costs of intervention. Reasonable cost-effectiveness was shown even with relatively high intervention costs for women at average risk at the age of 84 years or more. For the cheapest interventions ($63/year) cost-effectiveness could be found from the age of 53 years. Variations in effectiveness (15–50% risk reduction) had marked effects on the age that treatment was worthwhile. We conclude that segments of the apparently healthy population could be advantaged by treatment if efficacy were supported by randomized controlled studies. Received: May 2000 / Accepted: November 2000     

Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective

Summary A United States-specific cost-effectiveness analysis, which incorporated the cost and health consequences of clinical fractures of the hip, spine, forearm, shoulder, rib, pelvis and lower leg, was undertaken to identify the 10-year hip fracture probability required for osteoporosis treatment to be cost-effective for cohorts defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. A 3% 10-year risk of hip fracture was generally required for osteoporosis treatment to cost less than $60,000 per QALY gained. Introduction Rapid growth of the elderly United States population will result in so many at risk of osteoporosis that economically efficient approaches to osteoporosis care warrant consideration. Methods A Markov-cohort model of annual United States age-specific incidence of clinical hip, spine, forearm, shoulder, rib, pelvis and lower leg fractures, costs (2005 US dollars), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment ($600/yr drug cost for 5 years with 35% fracture reduction) by gender and race/ethnicity groups. To determine the 10-year hip fracture probability at which treatment became cost-effective, average annual age-specific probabilities for all fractures were multiplied by a relative risk (RR) that was systematically varied from 0 to 10 until a cost of $60,000 per QALY gained was observed for treatment relative to no intervention. Results Osteoporosis treatment was cost-effective when the 10-year hip fracture probability reached approximately 3%. Although the RR at which treatment became cost-effective varied markedly between genders and by race/ethnicity, the absolute 10-year hip fracture probability at which intervention became cost-effective was similar across race/ethnicity groups, but tended to be slightly higher for men than for women. Conclusions Application of the WHO risk prediction algorithm to identify individuals with a 3% 10-year hip fracture probability may facilitate efficient osteoporosis treatment. The authors comprise the National Osteoporosis Foundation Guide Committee.     

The cost-effectiveness of risedronate in the treatment of osteoporosis: an international perspective

Introduction Risedronate, a bisphosphonate for treatment and prevention of osteoporosis, has been shown in several clinical trials to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost-effectiveness of risedronate treatment has previously been evaluated within different country settings using different model and analysis approaches. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of risedronate in postmenopausal women in four European countries—Sweden, Finland, Spain, and Belgium—by making use of the same modelling framework and analysis setup. Methods A previously developed Markov cohort model for the evaluation of osteoporosis treatments was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of risedronate treatment. For each country, the model was populated with local mortality, fracture incidence, and cost data. Hip fractures, clinical vertebral fractures, and wrist fractures were included in the model. Results The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained from a 5-year intervention with risedronate compared to “no intervention” in 70-year-old women at the threshold of osteoporosis [T-score = −2.5 based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III data] and previous vertebral fracture was estimated to be €860, €19,532, €11,782, and €32,515 in Sweden, Finland, Belgium, and Spain, respectively. Among 70-year-old women at the threshold of osteoporosis without previous fracture the estimated cost per QALY gained ranged from €21,148 (Sweden) to €80,100 (Spain). The differences in cost-effectiveness between countries are mainly explained by different costs (fracture and treatment costs), fracture risks, and discount rates. Based on cost per QALY gained threshold values found in the literature, the study results indicated risedronate to be cost effective in the treatment of elderly women with established osteoporosis in all the included countries. Conclusions At a hypothetical threshold value of €40,000 per QALY gained, the results in this study indicate that risedronate is a cost-effective treatment in elderly women at the threshold of osteoporosis (i.e., a T-score of −2.5) with prevalent vertebral fractures in Sweden, Finland, Belgium, and Spain. Financial support was obtained via an unrestricted grant from The Alliance for Better Bone Health.     

Cost-effectiveness of the Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent in the Swedish healthcare system

Objective. To analyse the cost-effectiveness of Taxus compared to a bare-metal stent in patients with coronary artery disease in the Swedish healthcare setting. Design. A decision-analytic model combining clinical data on revascularization rates with Swedish unit costs for medical resources and utility data from the literature. Results. For patients of moderate risk, the average cost per patient at 12 months is 72?200 SEK for Taxus and 66?900 SEK for a bare-metal stent, while the average cost for high risk patients is nearly equivalent (73?000 vs. 71?700 SEK). The cost per revascularization avoided is generally favourable, while the incremental cost per QALY gained varies depending on the assumptions made; from 2?351?000 SEK for patients of moderate risk at 12-months to cost saving at 24 months for high risk patients. Budget impact scenarios at 12 months are cost-neutral. Conclusion. The Taxus stent is cost-effective in high risk patients, particularly at 24 months. Although it may be less cost-effective for the general population, there is still a substantial offset of initial procedure costs through lower rate of repeat revascularizations.     

Cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the treatment of male osteoporosis

Summary

The results of this study suggest that, under the assumption of same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women, strontium ranelate could be considered a cost-effective strategy compared with no treatment for the treatment of osteoporotic men from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective.

Introduction

This study was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporotic men.

Methods

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adapted to estimate the cost (€2,010) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of strontium ranelate compared with no treatment. Similar efficacy data on lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) between men with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture (MALEO Trial) and postmenopausal osteoporotic women (pivotal SOTI, TROPOS trials) supports the assumption, in the base-case analysis, of the same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women. Analyses were conducted, from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, in the population from the MALEO Trial who is a men population with a mean age of 73 years, and BMD T-score ≤?2.5 or prevalent vertebral fracture (PVF).

Results

In the MALEO population, strontium ranelate compared with no treatment was estimated at €49,798 and €25,584 per QALY gained using efficacy data from the intent-to-treat analysis and the per-protocol analysis including only adherent patients, respectively. In men with a BMD T-score ≤?2.5 or with PVF, the cost per QALY gained of strontium ranelate fall below thresholds of €45,000 and €25,000 per QALY gained based on efficacy data from the entire population of the clinical trial and from the per-protocol analyses, respectively.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that, under the assumption of same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women, strontium ranelate could be considered cost-effective compared with no treatment for male osteoporosis.     

The cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the UK for the management of osteoporosis

Summary

The cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate was compared to no treatment in UK women using the FRAX® algorithm for fracture risk assessment. At a willingness-to-pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), strontium ranelate was generally cost-effective in women with prior fracture at the threshold of osteoporosis from an age of 65 years.

Introduction

The objectives of the study were to estimate the cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the UK for the treatment of osteoporosis and to establish intervention thresholds for treatment using the FRAX® tool.

Methods

The cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate was compared to no treatment in postmenopausal women with clinical risk factors for fracture using a lifetime simulation model based on Markov cohort methodology that incorporated the features of FRAX®.

Results

At a threshold of £30,000 per QALY, strontium ranelate was generally cost-effective in women from an age of 65 years with prior fracture at the threshold of osteoporosis (i.e., a T-score of ?2.5 SD) and in women with a prior fracture (and no information on bone mineral density) from the age of 65 years. At a threshold of £20,000, strontium ranelate became cost-effective at a 10-year fracture probability of 25.7% and at 16.9% with a threshold of £30,000 for a QALY.

Conclusions

Strontium ranelate is a cost-effective agent for the treatment of established osteoporosis in women over the age of 65 years. Cost-effective scenarios were also found for the prevention and treatment of fractures associated with osteoporosis, in younger women with additional clinical risk factors.     

Cost-effectiveness of the Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent in the Swedish healthcare system

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost-effectiveness of Taxus compared to a bare-metal stent in patients with coronary artery disease in the Swedish healthcare setting. DESIGN: A decision-analytic model combining clinical data on revascularization rates with Swedish unit costs for medical resources and utility data from the literature. RESULTS: For patients of moderate risk, the average cost per patient at 12 months is 72,200 SEK for Taxus and 66,900 SEK for a bare-metal stent, while the average cost for high risk patients is nearly equivalent (73,000 vs. 71,700 SEK). The cost per revascularization avoided is generally favourable, while the incremental cost per QALY gained varies depending on the assumptions made; from 2,351,000 SEK for patients of moderate risk at 12-months to cost saving at 24 months for high risk patients. Budget impact scenarios at 12 months are cost-neutral. CONCLUSION: The Taxus stent is cost-effective in high risk patients, particularly at 24 months. Although it may be less cost-effective for the general population, there is still a substantial offset of initial procedure costs through lower rate of repeat revascularizations.     

The cost-effectiveness of risedronate treatment in Japanese women with osteoporosis

We constructed a mathematical model for assessing the cost-effectiveness of providing BMD (bone mineral density) scans to Japanese women aged 55 years and over and treating, with risedronate, those that are shown to be osteoporotic. Fracture rates, cost data, utility values, and the increased risks of fractures associated with T-score and vertebral fracture history were taken from published literature. We estimated the cost of fractures avoided due to risedronate treatment, allowing the net changes in cost, incorporating both intervention and fracture costs to be calculated. The QALYs (quality adjusted life years) gained through treatment were calculated enabling cost per QALY ratios to be presented. Further analyses were undertaken assuming treatment was reserved for older women and/or those who had sustained a vertebral fracture in the previous 2 years. Cost per QALY values were inversely related to absolute risk of fracture. Assuming a cost per QALY value threshold of US$100,000, we concluded that providing BMD scans to women aged 70 years and over who had sustained a vertebral fracture in the previous 2 years and treating those that were osteoporotic was cost-effective. However, providing BMD scans for women without a vertebral fracture in the previous 2 years was not cost-effective, even in women aged 85 years and older.     

The Cost‐Effectiveness of Screening in the Community to Reduce Osteoporotic Fractures in Older Women in the UK: Economic Evaluation of the SCOOP Study

The SCOOP study was a two‐arm randomized controlled trial conducted in the UK in 12,483 eligible women aged 70 to 85 years. It compared a screening program using the FRAX® risk assessment tool in addition to bone mineral density (BMD) measures versus usual management. The SCOOP study found a reduction in the incidence of hip fractures in the screening arm, but there was no evidence of a reduction in the incidence of all osteoporosis‐related fractures. To make decisions about whether to implement any screening program, we should also consider whether the program is likely to be a good use of health care resources, ie, is it cost‐effective? The cost per gained quality adjusted life year of screening for fracture risk has not previously been demonstrated in an economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial. We conducted a “within trial” economic analysis alongside the SCOOP study from the perspective of a national health payer, the UK National Health Service (NHS). The main outcome measure in the economic analysis was the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained over a 5‐year time period. We also estimated cost per osteoporosis‐related fracture prevented and the cost per hip fracture prevented. The screening arm had an average incremental QALY gain of 0.0237 (95% confidence interval –0.0034 to 0.0508) for the 5‐year follow‐up. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2772 compared with the control arm. Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves indicated a 93% probability of the intervention being cost‐effective at values of a QALY greater than £20,000. The intervention arm prevented fractures at a cost of £4478 and £7694 per fracture for osteoporosis‐related and hip fractures, respectively. The current study demonstrates that a systematic, community‐based screening program of fracture risk in older women in the UK represents a highly cost‐effective intervention. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Simulation-based cost-utility analysis of population screening-based alendronate use in Switzerland

Summary A simulation model adopting a health system perspective showed population-based screening with DXA, followed by alendronate treatment of persons with osteoporosis, or with anamnestic fracture and osteopenia, to be cost-effective in Swiss postmenopausal women from age 70, but not in men. Introduction We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a population-based screen-and-treat strategy for osteoporosis (DXA followed by alendronate treatment if osteoporotic, or osteopenic in the presence of fracture), compared to no intervention, from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. Methods A published Markov model assessed by first-order Monte Carlo simulation was refined to reflect the diagnostic process and treatment effects. Women and men entered the model at age 50. Main screening ages were 65, 75, and 85 years. Age at bone densitometry was flexible for persons fracturing before the main screening age. Realistic assumptions were made with respect to persistence with intended 5 years of alendronate treatment. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results In women, costs per QALY were Swiss francs (CHF) 71,000, CHF 35,000, and CHF 28,000 for the main screening ages of 65, 75, and 85 years. The threshold of CHF 50,000 per QALY was reached between main screening ages 65 and 75 years. Population-based screening was not cost-effective in men. Conclusion Population-based DXA screening, followed by alendronate treatment in the presence of osteoporosis, or of fracture and osteopenia, is a cost-effective option in Swiss postmenopausal women after age 70.     

Ticagrelor treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome is cost-effective in Sweden and Denmark

Objectives. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) for 12 months with ticagrelor compared with generic clopidogrel in Sweden and Denmark. Design. Decision-analytic model to estimate lifetime costs, life-expectancy, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Event rates, healthcare resource use, and health-related quality of life during 12 months of therapy were estimated from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Beyond 12 months, quality-adjusted survival and costs were estimated conditional on events occurring during the 12 months of therapy. When available, country-specific data were employed in the analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented from a healthcare perspective and a broader societal perspective including costs falling outside the healthcare sector in 2010 local currency. Results. The cost per QALY with ticagrelor compared with generic clopidogrel was SEK 25 022 and DKK 26 892 for Sweden and Denmark, respectively, from a healthcare perspective. The cost per QALY from a broader societal perspective was SEK 24 290 and DKK 25 051 for Sweden and Denmark, respectively. Conclusion. The cost per QALY of treating ACS-patients with ticagrelor compared with generic clopidogrel is below the conventional thresholds of cost-effectiveness in Sweden and Denmark.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal Japanese women

 Osteoporosis-related hip fracture is an important cause of mortality and morbidity in older people. In an aging society such as Japan's, prevention and treatment of osteoporosis is of paramount importance in reducing the risk of hip fracture. To determine the efficiency of screening by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for reducing the incidence of hip fracture, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a state-transition model. We compared the following four strategies in a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal Japanese women: (1) no intervention; (2) hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for patients with osteoporosis after screening; (3) HRT for patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis after screening; and (4) universal HRT. Epidemiological and economic data were collected from published articles. HRT for patients with osteoporosis after screening was the most cost-effective strategy, with the marginal cost-effectiveness being 5.36 million yen/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ratios for other strategies exceeded 10 million yen/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that the drug effect and treatment cost of HRT had a significant influence on the results. Screening postmenopausal Japanese women and treating patients with osteoporosis may be an acceptable strategy, but its cost-effectiveness ratio seems only fair at present. Received: January 30, 2002 / Accepted: March 22, 2002 Offprint requests to: T. Fukui     

Cost-effectiveness of conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials have shown similar mid-term outcomes for survival and quality of life after endovascular and conventional open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). With reduced hospital and intensive care stay, endovascular repair has been hypothesized to be more efficient than open repair. The Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial was undertaken to assess the balance of costs and effects of endovascular vs open aneurysm repair. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing endovascular repair with open repair in 351 patients with an AAA and studied costs, cost-effectiveness, and clinical outcome 1 year after surgery. In addition to clinical outcome, costs and quality of life were recorded up to 1 year in 170 patients in the endovascular repair group and in 170 in the open repair group. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for cost per life-year, event-free life-year, and quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Uncertainty regarding these outcomes was assessed using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Patients in the endovascular repair group experienced 0.72 QALY vs 0.73 in the open repair group (absolute difference, 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.038 to 0.058). Endovascular repair was associated with additional euro 4293 direct costs (euro 18,179 vs euro 13.886; 95% CI, euro 2,770 to euro 5,830). Most of the bootstrap estimates indicated that endovascular repair resulted in slightly longer overall and event-free survival associated with respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of euro76,100 and euro 171,500 per year gained. Open repair appeared the dominant strategy in costs per QALY. CONCLUSION: Presently, routine use of endovascular repair in patients also eligible for open repair does not result in a QALY gain at 1 year postoperatively, provides only a marginal overall survival benefit, and is associated with a substantial, if not prohibitive, increase in costs.     

Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis in the UK

The aim of this study was to determine the threshold of fracture probability at which interventions became cost-effective in women based on data from the UK. We modelled the effects of an intervention costing pound 350 per year given for 5 years that decreased the risk of all osteoporotic fractures by 35% followed by a waning of effect (offset time) for a further 5 years. Sensitivity analyses included a range of treatment duration (3-10 years), intervention costs (pound 300-400/year) and offset times (0-15 years). Data on costs and risks were from the UK. Costs included direct costs, but excluded indirect costs due to morbidity. A threshold for cost-effectiveness of pound 30,000/QALY gained was used. With the base case ( pound 350 per year; 35% efficacy) treatment in women was cost-effective with a 10-year hip fracture probability that ranged from 1.1% at the age of 50 years to 9.0% at the age of 85 years. Intervention thresholds were sensitive to the assumed costs and offset time. The exclusion of osteoporotic fractures other than hip fracture significantly increased the cost-effectiveness ratio because of the substantial morbidity from such other fractures, particularly at younger ages. Cost-effective scenarios were found for women at the threshold for osteoporosis from the age of 60 years. Treatment of established osteoporosis was cost-effective irrespective of age. We conclude that the inclusion of all osteoporotic fractures has a marked effect on intervention thresholds, that these vary with age and that available treatments can be targeted cost-effectively to individuals from the UK at moderately increased fracture risk.     

Cost effectiveness of alendronate for the treatment of male osteoporosis in Sweden

Background: One third of all the hip fractures occur in men. The risk for mortality following hip fracture is higher for men compared to women. The Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) showed that the bisphosphonate alendronate reduces the risk of fractures and increases bone mineral density (BMD) in osteoporotic women. Similar effects of alendronate were observed in men in some other trials. There are also results demonstrating alendronate to be cost-effective in the treatment of osteoporosis in women. Objective: To investigate the cost effectiveness of alendronate for male osteoporosis in Sweden by assuming the same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women, based on the FIT trial. Design: A Markov model earlier used to analyze cost effectiveness of alendronate in treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Sweden was adapted to fit a cohort of Swedish men. Cost effectiveness of alendronate vs. no treatment was assessed by transitioning men in the model over time between different health states. Time horizon: The patients were followed from start of intervention until 100 years of age or death. In the base-case alendronate was assumed to have a fracture-risk-reducing effect for 10 years; a treatment duration period of 5 years followed by a 5-year period where the effect declined linearly to zero. Results: Taking a societal perspective treating a 71-year-old man (mean age in the FIT) with low BMD and prior vertebral fracture (VFA) with alendronate was found to be associated with a cost of €14,843 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Conclusions: The results in this study indicate that treating osteoporotic men with alendronate was projected to be cost-effective, under the assumption of the same fracture-risk-reducing effect of alendronate for men as for women.