scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Italy

Author(s):  
M. Hiligsmann ◽  
S. Maggi ◽  
N. Veronese ◽  
L. Sartori ◽  
J.-Y. Reginster
2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Minniti ◽  
Ottavio Davini ◽  
Maria Rosaria Gualano ◽  
Maria Michela Gianino

Objectives:The study question was whether dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) alone is more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis than a two-step procedure with quantitative ultrasound sonography (QUS) plus DXA. To answer this question, a systematic review was performed.Methods:Electronic databases (PubMed, INAHTA, Health Evidence Network, NIHR, the Health Technology Assessment program, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, Web of Science, Scopus, and EconLit) were searched for cost-effectiveness publications. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using the Drummond checklist.Results:Seven journal articles and four reports were reviewed. The cost per true positive case diagnosed by DXA was found to be higher than that for diagnosis by QUS+DXA in two articles. In one article it was found to be lower. In three studies, the results were not conclusive. These articles were characterized by the differences in the types of devices, parameters and thresholds on the QUS and DXA tests and the unit costs of the DXA and QUS tests as well as by variability in the sensitivity and specificity of the techniques and the prevalence of osteoporosis.Conclusions:The publications reviewed did not provide clear-cut evidence for drawing conclusions about which screening test may be more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.


2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 84 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Djalalov ◽  
J. Beca ◽  
E. Amir ◽  
M. Krahn ◽  
M.E. Trudeau ◽  
...  

BackgroundAromatase inhibitor (ai) therapy has been subjected to numerous cost-effectiveness analyses. However, with most ais having reached the end of patent protection and with maturation of the clinical trials data, a re-analysis of ai cost-effectiveness and a consideration of ai use as part of sequential therapy is desirable. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 5-year upfront and sequential tamoxifen (tam) and ai hormonal strategies currently used for treating patients with estrogen receptor (er)–positive early breast cancer.Methods The cost-effectiveness analysis used a Markov model that took a Canadian health system perspective with a lifetime time horizon. The base case involved 65-year-old women with er-positive early breast cancer. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to incorporate parameter uncertainties. An expected-value-of-perfect-information test was performed to identify future research directions. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) and costs.Results The sequential tam–ai strategy was less costly than the other strategies, but less effective than upfront ai and more effective than upfront tam. Upfront ai was more effective and less costly than upfront tam because of less breast cancer recurrence and differences in adverse events. In an exploratory analysis that included a sequential ai–tam strategy, ai–tam dominated based on small numerical differences unlikely to be clinically significant; that strategy was thus not used in the base-case analysis.ConclusionsIn postmenopausal women with er-positive early breast cancer, strategies using ais appear to provide more benefit than strategies using tam alone. Among the ai-containing strategies, sequential strategies using tam and an ai appear to provide benefits similar to those provided by upfront ai, but at a lower cost.


Author(s):  
Na Li ◽  
Bin Zheng ◽  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Haimei Zhou ◽  
Lingfen Zhao ◽  
...  

BMC Medicine ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Kearns ◽  
Jim Chilcott ◽  
Sophie Whyte ◽  
Louise Preston ◽  
Susi Sadler

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document