Publication: Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for high-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Thailand
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
1941837X
13696998
13696998
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85080933599
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Medical Economics. (2020)
Suggested Citation
Chatlert Pongchaiyakul, Ratanavadee Nanagara, Thawee Songpatanasilp, Aasis Unnanuntana Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for high-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Thailand. Journal of Medical Economics. (2020). doi:10.1080/13696998.2020.1730381 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/53838
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for high-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Thailand
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2020, © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture in Thailand. Materials and methods: A published Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model was populated with country-specific data as available and other published data as needed. The model used a societal perspective, lifetime horizon, efficacy data from network meta-analysis of trials, and included costs for direct medical and non-medical care, informal care, and osteoporosis treatments to compare denosumab to no pharmacologic treatment (calcium and vitamin D supplements only) and to oral weekly alendronate. The base case (high-risk population) included postmenopausal women with femoral neck T-score ≤−2.5, mean age 65 years at entry, and history of vertebral fracture. Results: High-risk women with osteoporosis using denosumab had the greatest number of life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with higher reductions in hip and vertebral fracture incidence compared with patients with no pharmacologic treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 119,575 Thai Baht (THB) per QALY for denosumab versus no pharmacologic treatment and 199,186 THB per QALY for denosumab versus alendronate. Among Thai postmenopausal women with high-risk of fractures, denosumab was cost-effective compared with no pharmacologic treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed models were most sensitive to changes in denosumab pricing. Limitations: Data from other countries used when country-specific data were unavailable may not accurately reflect the true experience in Thailand. The model focused explicitly on hip, vertebral, and wrist fractures, and therefore provides a conservative estimate of the overall potential impact of osteoporosis-related fracture. The fracture risk was not adjusted to reflect potential changes in risk after denosumab treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: In Thailand, denosumab offers a cost-effective osteoporosis treatment option versus no pharmacologic treatment in postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture.