希腊Denosumab与双膦酸盐治疗绝经后骨质疏松的成本-效果分析

Georgios Renieris, E. Georgaki, N. Renieri, Athanasios Georgokostas, A. Zafeirakis
{"title":"希腊Denosumab与双膦酸盐治疗绝经后骨质疏松的成本-效果分析","authors":"Georgios Renieris, E. Georgaki, N. Renieri, Athanasios Georgokostas, A. Zafeirakis","doi":"10.35248/2329-9509.21.9.245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Osteoporosis consists an increasing economic burden for healthcare systems worldwide. In addition to prevention strategies, pharmaceutical treatment to reduce the risk for osteoporotic fractures is gaining focus. Data about the cost effectiveness of anti- osteoportic treatments in Greece is missing. We performed a cost- effectiveness analysis of the two golden standard treatment strategies, bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies, such as denosumab. Methods: Clinical data and data of bone absorptiometry of 128 post-menopausal women, who received antiosteoporotic treatment, were retrospectively collected. Based on this data a cost- effectiveness analysis was performed. As an indicator of effectiveness, we defined the patients’ transition, under anti- osteoporotic medication, into a condition in which all the criteria underlined by the Hellenic Osteoporosis Foundation as necessary to stop antiosteoporotic treatment are met. The costs included in the analysis involve the pharmaceutical costs, cost of the diagnostic procedure and cost of treatment of incident osteoporotic fractures. The two treatment regimens were compared by the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results and conclusions: Treatment with denosumab is found to have statistical significantly higher efficiency (ΟR 2.58; 95%CIs 1.21-5.50; p=0.016) but also significantly higher treatment costs (2412.00 € ± 123.50 and 1760.00 € ± 141.3; p=0.0007) compared to treatment with bisphosphonates. Treatment with denosumab, is not cost-effective compared to bisphosphonate treatment (ICER 3105 €) for accomplishing the treatment objectives. In order to achieve cost effectiveness, the cost per unit of denosumab should be discounted by 30% or the adherence to treatment should significantly be increased.","PeriodicalId":92253,"journal":{"name":"Journal of osteoporosis and physical activity","volume":"67 1","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Denosumab Compared to Bisphosphonates for Treating Post-Menopausal Osteoporosis in Greece\",\"authors\":\"Georgios Renieris, E. Georgaki, N. Renieri, Athanasios Georgokostas, A. Zafeirakis\",\"doi\":\"10.35248/2329-9509.21.9.245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Osteoporosis consists an increasing economic burden for healthcare systems worldwide. In addition to prevention strategies, pharmaceutical treatment to reduce the risk for osteoporotic fractures is gaining focus. Data about the cost effectiveness of anti- osteoportic treatments in Greece is missing. We performed a cost- effectiveness analysis of the two golden standard treatment strategies, bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies, such as denosumab. Methods: Clinical data and data of bone absorptiometry of 128 post-menopausal women, who received antiosteoporotic treatment, were retrospectively collected. Based on this data a cost- effectiveness analysis was performed. As an indicator of effectiveness, we defined the patients’ transition, under anti- osteoporotic medication, into a condition in which all the criteria underlined by the Hellenic Osteoporosis Foundation as necessary to stop antiosteoporotic treatment are met. The costs included in the analysis involve the pharmaceutical costs, cost of the diagnostic procedure and cost of treatment of incident osteoporotic fractures. The two treatment regimens were compared by the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results and conclusions: Treatment with denosumab is found to have statistical significantly higher efficiency (ΟR 2.58; 95%CIs 1.21-5.50; p=0.016) but also significantly higher treatment costs (2412.00 € ± 123.50 and 1760.00 € ± 141.3; p=0.0007) compared to treatment with bisphosphonates. Treatment with denosumab, is not cost-effective compared to bisphosphonate treatment (ICER 3105 €) for accomplishing the treatment objectives. In order to achieve cost effectiveness, the cost per unit of denosumab should be discounted by 30% or the adherence to treatment should significantly be increased.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92253,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of osteoporosis and physical activity\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of osteoporosis and physical activity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35248/2329-9509.21.9.245\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of osteoporosis and physical activity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2329-9509.21.9.245","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:骨质疏松症是全球医疗保健系统日益增加的经济负担。除了预防策略外,减少骨质疏松性骨折风险的药物治疗也越来越受到关注。关于希腊抗骨质疏松治疗的成本效益的数据缺失。我们对双膦酸盐和单克隆抗体(如地诺单抗)这两种金标准治疗策略进行了成本-效果分析。方法:回顾性收集128例经抗骨质疏松治疗的绝经后妇女的临床资料及骨密度测定资料。在此基础上进行了成本效益分析。作为有效性的一个指标,我们定义了患者在抗骨质疏松药物治疗下的过渡状态,达到希腊骨质疏松基金会强调的所有停止抗骨质疏松治疗的必要标准。分析中包括的费用包括药品费用、诊断程序费用和偶发骨质疏松性骨折的治疗费用。采用增量成本-效果比(ICER)对两种治疗方案进行比较。结果与结论:denosumab治疗组的疗效显著高于对照组(ΟR 2.58;95%顺式1.21 - -5.50;P =0.016),但治疗费用也显著增加(2412.00€±123.50和1760.00€±141.3);P =0.0007)。与双膦酸盐治疗(ICER 3105欧元)相比,denosumab治疗在实现治疗目标方面没有成本效益。为了达到成本效益,单位denosumab的成本应折让30%或显著提高治疗依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Denosumab Compared to Bisphosphonates for Treating Post-Menopausal Osteoporosis in Greece
Purpose: Osteoporosis consists an increasing economic burden for healthcare systems worldwide. In addition to prevention strategies, pharmaceutical treatment to reduce the risk for osteoporotic fractures is gaining focus. Data about the cost effectiveness of anti- osteoportic treatments in Greece is missing. We performed a cost- effectiveness analysis of the two golden standard treatment strategies, bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies, such as denosumab. Methods: Clinical data and data of bone absorptiometry of 128 post-menopausal women, who received antiosteoporotic treatment, were retrospectively collected. Based on this data a cost- effectiveness analysis was performed. As an indicator of effectiveness, we defined the patients’ transition, under anti- osteoporotic medication, into a condition in which all the criteria underlined by the Hellenic Osteoporosis Foundation as necessary to stop antiosteoporotic treatment are met. The costs included in the analysis involve the pharmaceutical costs, cost of the diagnostic procedure and cost of treatment of incident osteoporotic fractures. The two treatment regimens were compared by the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results and conclusions: Treatment with denosumab is found to have statistical significantly higher efficiency (ΟR 2.58; 95%CIs 1.21-5.50; p=0.016) but also significantly higher treatment costs (2412.00 € ± 123.50 and 1760.00 € ± 141.3; p=0.0007) compared to treatment with bisphosphonates. Treatment with denosumab, is not cost-effective compared to bisphosphonate treatment (ICER 3105 €) for accomplishing the treatment objectives. In order to achieve cost effectiveness, the cost per unit of denosumab should be discounted by 30% or the adherence to treatment should significantly be increased.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信