IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0032879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Generic Alendronate Cost on the Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Smita Nayak
  • Mark S Roberts
  • Susan L Greenspan

Abstract

Introduction: Since alendronate became available in generic form in the Unites States in 2008, its price has been decreasing. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women. Methods: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment for U.S. women age 65 and older. We assumed screening initiation at age 65 with central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and alendronate treatment for individuals with osteoporosis; with a comparator of “no screening” and treatment only after fracture occurrence. We evaluated annual alendronate costs of $20 through $800; outcome measures included fractures; nursing home admission; medication adverse events; death; costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2010 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. A lifetime time horizon was used, and direct costs were included. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Base-case analysis results showed that at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less, osteoporosis screening followed by treatment was cost-saving, resulting in lower total costs than no screening as well as more QALYs (10.6 additional quality-adjusted life-days). When assuming alendronate costs of $400 through $800, screening and treatment resulted in greater lifetime costs than no screening but was highly cost-effective, with ICERs ranging from $714 per QALY gained through $13,902 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment was robust to joint input parameter estimate variation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY at all alendronate costs evaluated. Conclusions: Osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment is effective and highly cost-effective for postmenopausal women across a range of alendronate costs, and may be cost-saving at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less.

Suggested Citation

  • Smita Nayak & Mark S Roberts & Susan L Greenspan, 2012. "Impact of Generic Alendronate Cost on the Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0032879
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032879
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032879&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0032879?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis G. Fryback & Erik J. Dasbach & Ronald Klein & Barbara E.K. Klein & Norma Dorn & Kathy Peterson & Patrica A. Martin, 1993. "The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(2), pages 89-102, June.
    2. Rachael Fleurence & Cynthia Iglesias & Jeanene Johnson, 2007. "The Cost Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates for the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 913-933, November.
    3. Lee R. Mobley & Thomas J. Hoerger & John S. Wittenborn & Deborah A. Galuska & Jaya K. Rao, 2006. "Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment with Hormone Replacement Therapy, Raloxifene, or Alendronate," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 194-206, March.
    4. Janel Hanmer & William F. Lawrence & John P. Anderson & Robert M. Kaplan & Dennis G. Fryback, 2006. "Report of Nationally Representative Values for the Noninstitutionalized US Adult Population for 7 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 391-400, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    2. Rakesh Aggarwal & Qiushi Chen & Amit Goel & Nicole Seguy & Razia Pendse & Turgay Ayer & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment using generic direct-acting antivirals available in India," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Mickaël Hiligsmann & Stuart S. Silverman & Andrea J. Singer & Leny Pearman & Jake Mathew & Yamei Wang & John Caminis & Jean-Yves Reginster, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(7), pages 819-830, July.
    4. Hirsch Ruchlin & Ralph Insinga, 2008. "A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 925-935, November.
    5. Michele Kohli & Cheryl Attard & Annette Lam & Daniel Huse & John Cook & Chantal Bourgault & Evo Alemao & Donald Yin & Michael Marentette, 2006. "Cost Effectiveness of Adding Ezetimibe to Atorvastatin Therapy in Patients Not at Cholesterol Treatment Goal in Canada," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 815-830, August.
    6. Louis S. Matza & Katherine J. Kim & Holly Yu & Katherine A. Belden & Antonia F. Chen & Mark Kurd & Bruce Y. Lee & Jason Webb, 2019. "Health state utilities associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus infections," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 819-827, August.
    7. Ara, R & Brazier, JE, 2010. "Using health state utility values from the general population to approximate baselines in decision analytic models when condition specific data are not available," MPRA Paper 29946, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Malek Ebadi & Raha Akhavan-Tabatabaei, 2021. "Personalized Cotesting Policies for Cervical Cancer Screening: A POMDP Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Lin Li & J L (Hans) Severens & Olena Mandrik, 2019. "Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. William M Reichmann & Jeffrey N Katz & Elena Losina, 2011. "Differences in Self-Reported Health in the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) and Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-7, February.
    11. Erik Nord & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "The value of life: individual preferences and social choice. A comment to Magnus Johannesson," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 873-877, October.
    12. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    13. Prajakta P. Masurkar & Haluk Damgacioglu & Ashish A. Deshmukh & Meghana V. Trivedi, 2023. "Cost Effectiveness of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women in the USA," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 709-718, June.
    14. Thi-Phuong-Lan Nguyen & Paul F M Krabbe & Thi-Bach-Yen Nguyen & Catharina C M Schuiling-Veninga & E Pamela Wright & Maarten J Postma, 2015. "Utilities of Patients with Hypertension in Northern Vietnam," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-9, October.
    15. Lisa J McGarry & Girishanthy Krishnarajah & Gregory Hill & Michelle Skornicki & Narin Pruttivarasin & Cristina Masseria & Bhakti Arondekar & Stephen I Pelton & Milton C Weinstein, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tdap in the Prevention of Pertussis in the Elderly," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-9, September.
    16. Don Kenkel, 2006. "WTP- and QALY-Based Approaches to Valuing Health for Policy: Common Ground and Disputed Territory," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 419-437, July.
    17. Rachael Fleurence & Cynthia Iglesias & Jeanene Johnson, 2007. "The Cost Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates for the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 913-933, November.
    18. Amber Pearson & Gregory Breetzke, 2014. "The Association Between the Fear of Crime, and Mental and Physical Wellbeing in New Zealand," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 281-294, October.
    19. James F Burke & Kenneth M Langa & Rodney A Hayward & Roger L Albin, 2014. "Modeling Test and Treatment Strategies for Presymptomatic Alzheimer Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
    20. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0032879. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.