Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness as well as adherence and patient preference for denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. Data Sources: Two comprehensive PubMed literature searches (from data inception to December 2017) were performed. The first search included the terms osteoporosis, denosumab, bisphosphonate, and adherence or persistence or compliance or preference. The search terms osteoporosis, denosumab, cost, and effectiveness were used in the second literature search. Additional references were included from reviewing literature citations. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language clinical trials on adherence (as compliance and persistence) or patient preference for denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates were evaluated. In addition, articles analyzing the cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared with generic alendronate were evaluated. Data Synthesis: Four studies that assessed patient preference showed positive outcomes for preference and satisfaction for subcutaneous use of denosumab every 6 months versus oral alendronate weekly, oral ibandronate monthly, or oral risedronate monthly. Three studies evaluated persistence and compliance and/or adherence and showed improved persistence and compliance rates with denosumab compared with bisphosphonate therapy. Twelve articles and 3 abstracts assessed cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared with generic alendronate. The majority of articles showed that denosumab was cost-effective, and even cost-saving in patients older than 75 years of age and those who have a history of previous fractures, lower bone mineral density T-scores, and more risk factors. Conclusions: Denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates may improve patient preference and adherence as well as provide a cost-effective treatment strategy, especially among higher-risk and older adults with osteoporosis.
CamachoPMPetakSMBinkleyNet al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis—2016. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(suppl 4):1-42. doi:10.4158/ep161435.gl
3.
DevineJTriceSFinneyZet al. A retrospective analysis of extended-interval dosing and the impact on bisphosphonate compliance in the US Military Health System. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:1415-1424. doi:10.1007/s00198-011-1729-4
4.
KothawalaPBadamgaravERyuSMillerRMHalbertRJ.Systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world adherence to drug therapy for osteoporosis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:1493-1501. doi:10.1016/S0025-6196(11)61093-8
5.
ReidIR.Bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis: a review of their contribution and controversies. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40:1191-1196. doi:10.1007/s00256-011-1164-9
6.
LubwamaRNguyenAModiAChirovskyDMillerPD.Prevalence of renal impairment among osteoporotic women in the USA, NHANES 2005-2008: is treatment with bisphosphonates an option?Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:1607-1615. doi:10.1007/s00198-014-2645-1
7.
BoyleWJSimonetWSLaceyDL.Osteoclast differentiation and activation. Nature. 2003;423:337-342.
8.
CosmanFDe BeurSJLeboffMSet al; National Osteoporosis Foundation. Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:2359-2381. doi:10.1007/s00198-014-2794-2
9.
BrandaoCMMachadoGPAcurcio FdeA.Pharmacoeconomic analysis of strategies to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review [in Portuguese]. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2012;52:924-937.
10.
HiligsmannMBoonenADirksenCDSedrineBWReginsterJY.Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:19-28. doi:10.1586/ERP.12.76
11.
AlbertSGReddyS.Clinical evaluation of cost efficacy of drugs for treatment of osteoporosis: a meta-analysis. Endocr Pract. 2017;23:841-856. doi:10.4158/EP161678.RA
ParthanAKruseMYurginNHuangJViswanathanHNTaylorD.Cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis in the US. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:485-497. doi:10.1007/s40258-013-0047-8
15.
FreemantleNSatram-HoangSTangETet 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. 2012;23:317-326. doi:10.1007/s00198-011-1780-1
16.
HorneRWeinmanJHankinsM.The Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire: the development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication. Psychol Health. 1999;14:1-24.
17.
GoldDTHorneRCoonCDet al. Development, reliability, and validity of a new Preference and Satisfaction Questionnaire. Value Health. 2011;14:1109-1116.
18.
KendlerDLMacariosDLillestolMJet al. Influence of patient perceptions and preferences for osteoporosis medication on adherence behavior in the Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction study. Menopause. 2014;21:25-32.
19.
KendlerDLBessetteLHillCDet al. Preference and satisfaction with a 6-month subcutaneous injection versus a weekly tablet for treatment of low bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21:837-846. doi:10.1007/s00198-009-1023-x
20.
KendlerDLBenhamouCLBrownJPet al. Effects of denosumab in postmenopausal women transitioning from alendronate therapy in comparison with continued alendronate (STAND). Osteoporos Int. 2008;9(suppl 2):S385-S386.
21.
BrownJPPrinceRLDealCet al. Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on BMD and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial (DECIDE). J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24:153-161.
22.
PalaciosSAgodoaIBonnickSet al. Treatment satisfaction in postmenopausal women suboptimally adherent to bisphosphonates who transitioned to denosumab compared with risedronate or ibandronate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:E487-E492. doi:10.1210/jc.2014-3594
23.
RouxCHofbauerLCHoPRet al. Denosumab compared with risedronate in postmenopausal women suboptimally adherent to alendronate therapy: efficacy and safety results from a randomized open-label study. Bone. 2014;58:48-54.
24.
RecknorCCzerwinskiEBoneHGet al. Denosumab compared with ibandronate in postmenopausal women previously treated with bisphosphonate therapy: a randomized open-label trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:1291-1299.
25.
ReynoldsKViswanathanHNO’MalleyCDet al. Psychometric properties of the osteoporosis-specific Morisky Medication Adherence Scale in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis newly treated with bisphosphonates. Ann Pharmacother. 2012;46:659-670.
26.
AtkinsonMJSinhaAHassSLet al. Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:12.
27.
ChengLIDurdenELimoneBet al. Persistance and compliance with osteroporosis therapies among women in a commercially insured population in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2015;21:824-833.
28.
DurdenEPintoLLopez-GonzalezLJuneauPBarronR.Two-year persistence and compliance with osteoporosis therapies among postmenopausal women in a commercially insured population in the United States. Arch Osteoporos. 2017;12:22. doi:10.1007/s11657-017-0316-5
29.
ParthanAKruseMAgodoaISilvermanSOrwollE.Denosumab: a cost-effective alternative for older men with osteoporosis from a Swedish payer perspective. Bone. 2014;59:105-113. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2013.11.002
30.
SilvermanSAgodoaIKruseMParthanAOrwollE.Denosumab for elderly men with osteoporosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the US payer perspective. J Osteoporos. 2015;2015:627631. doi:10.1155/2015/627631
31.
MarquesALourencoOOrtsaterGBorgstromFKanisJAda SilvaJA.Cost-effectiveness of intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis based on FRAX(®) in Portugal. Calcif Tissue Int. 2016;99:131-141. doi:10.1007/s00223-016-0132-8
32.
YatesCJChauchardMALiewDBucknillAWarkJD.Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service. J Clin Densitom. 2015;18:150-156. doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2015.01.003
33.
JönssonBStromOEismanJAet al. Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:967-982. doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1424-x
34.
StromOJonssonBKanisJA.Intervention thresholds for denosumab in the UK using a FRAX®-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:1491-1502. doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2115-6
35.
AthanasakisKKarampliEHollandezosMet al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Greece. Value Health. 2011;14:A308.
36.
KarnonJShafieASOrjiNUsmanSK.What are we paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of patented denosumab and generic alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Australia. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2016;14:11. doi:10.1186/s12962-016-0060-5
37.
CristinoJCanhãoHPerelmanJSantosCPereiraJ.Cost-utility analysis of denosumab versus standard care in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Portugal. Value Health. 2011;14:A128.
38.
ChauDBeckerDLCoombesMEIoannidisGAdachiJDGoereeR.Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Canada. J Med Econ. 2012;15(suppl 1):3-14. doi:10.3111/13696998.2012.737393
39.
MoriTCrandallCJGanzDA.Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus oral alendronate for elderly osteoporotic women in Japan. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:1733-1744. doi:10.1007/s00198-017-3940-4
40.
DarbaJKaskensLVilelaSFLothgrenM.Cost-utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:105-117. doi:10.2147/CEOR.S78349
41.
HiligsmannMReginsterJY.Cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:895-911. doi:10.2165/11539980-000000000-00000
42.
JiangYHayJ.The cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in the setting of the United States. Value Health. 2012;15:A38.
43.
KanisJAJohnellOOdenAJohanssonHMcCloskeyE.FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:385-397. doi:10.1007/s00198-007-0543-5
