Economic evaluation of zoledronic acid for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors in the UK
Aromatase inhibitors are used as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (BC) and are associated with accelerated bone loss. Zoledronic acid (ZOL) prevents aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with BC. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of ZOL for prevention...
Saved in:
Published in | Annals of oncology Vol. 21; no. 7; pp. 1529 - 1536 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Oxford
Elsevier Ltd
01.07.2010
Oxford University Press |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Aromatase inhibitors are used as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (BC) and are associated with accelerated bone loss. Zoledronic acid (ZOL) prevents aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with BC. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of ZOL for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with BC.
A Markov model was developed to project lifetime incidence of fractures, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and costs as a function of bone mineral density (BMD) for women with early-stage BC receiving letrozole alone or with ZOL. Two strategies of ZOL therapy were compared with no treatment: starting ZOL treatment only when BMD levels decreased (‘delayed ZOL’) and starting ZOL simultaneously with letrozole therapy (‘upfront ZOL’).
Delayed ZOL therapy was estimated to cost £16069 per QALY, when compared with not administering bisphosphonates for AIBL prevention. The corresponding cost per QALY gained for upfront ZOL versus no treatment was estimated at £21973. The cost-effectiveness ratio for upfront versus delayed therapy was estimated at £24868 per QALY gained.
Both delayed and upfront therapy with ZOL for the prevention of AIBL and fractures in BC patients in the UK appear to result in highly acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ark:/67375/HXZ-3LX183X9-7 istex:D97E274CFD7D630E7D9CFD99110404E9EA76B59F ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-2 ObjectType-Feature-1 |
ISSN: | 0923-7534 1569-8041 |
DOI: | 10.1093/annonc/mdp560 |