Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases secondary to advanced renal cell carcinoma: application to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
BACKGROUND
The use of zoledronic acid (ZOL) has recently been shown to significantly reduce the risk of new skeletal-related events (SREs) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with bone metastases. The present exploratory study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ZOL in this population, adopting a French, German, and United Kingdom (UK) government payer perspective.


METHODS
This cost-effectiveness model was based on a post hoc retrospective analysis of a subset of patients with RCC who were included in a larger randomized clinical trial of patients with bone metastases secondary to a variety of cancers. In the trial, patients were randomized to receive ZOL (n = 27) or placebo (n = 19) with concomitant antineoplastic therapy every 3 weeks for 9 months (core study) plus 12 months during a study extension. Since the trial did not collect costs or data on the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the patients, these outcomes had to be assumed via modeling exercises. The costs of SREs were estimated using hospital DRG tariffs. These estimates were supplemented with literature-based costs where possible. Drug, administration, and supply costs were obtained from published and internet sources. Consistent with similar economic analyses, patients were assumed to experience quality of life decrements lasting 1 month for each SRE. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via multivariate sensitivity analyses.


RESULTS
Patients receiving ZOL experienced 1.07 fewer SREs than patients on placebo. Patients on ZOL experienced a gain in discounted QALYs of approximately 0.1563 in France and Germany and 0.1575 in the UK. Discounted SRE-related costs were substantially lower among ZOL than placebo patients (-€ 4,196 in France, - € 3,880 in Germany, and -€ 3,355 in the UK). After taking into consideration the drug therapy costs, ZOL saved € 1,358, € 1,223, and € 719 in France, Germany, and the UK, respectively. In the multivariate sensitivity analyses, therapy with ZOL saved costs in 67-77% of simulations, depending on the country. The cost per QALY gained for ZOL versus placebo was below € 30,000 per QALY gained threshold in approximately 93-94% of multivariate sensitivity analyses simulations.


CONCLUSIONS
The present analysis suggests that ZOL saves costs and increases QALYs compared to placebo in French, German, and UK RCC patients with bone metastases. Additional prospective research may be needed to confirm these results in a larger sample of patients.
Botteman
M F
MF
Health Economics, Pharmerit International, 4530 East-West Highway, #430, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. mbotteman@pharmerit.com
Meijboom
M
M
Foley
I
I
Stephens
J M
JM
Chen
Y M
YM
Kaura
S
S
D050071:Bone Density Conservation Agents / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001859:Bone Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000556:secondary*; D001842:Bone and Bones / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000503:physiopathology; D002292:Carcinoma, Renal Cell / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000473:pathology*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004164:Diphosphonates / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005260:Female; D005380:Financing, Government; D005602:France; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D007093:Imidazoles / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D008297:Male; D018803:Models, Economic; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D006113:United Kingdom; D000077211:Zoledronic Acid
D050071:Bone Density Conservation Agents; D004164:Diphosphonates; D007093:Imidazoles; D000077211:Zoledronic Acid
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002 Oct 2;94(19):1458-68
12359855
Eur Urol. 2003 Mar;43(3):226-32
12600424
J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 20;23(15):3314-21
15738536
N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 19;336(25):1840-1
9190503
Health Econ. 1994 Sep-Oct;3(5):309-19
7827647
JAMA. 1998 Dec 16;280(23):1992-3
9863846
Int J Oncol. 2001 Aug;19(2):379-82
11445855
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Sep 15;18(18):3318
10986065
Support Care Cancer. 2007 Jul;15(7):869-76
17262196
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Mar;47(3):231-9
8138833
Support Care Cancer. 2005 Dec;13(12):975-86
15871033
Dis Esophagus. 2007;20(2):102-6
17439592
Ann Oncol. 2008 Mar;19(3):420-32
17906299
J Thorac Oncol. 2006 Jul;1(6):571-6
17409919
Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(4):1-176
14960258
Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
9566468
J Cell Biochem. 2004 Feb 1;91(2):265-76
14743387
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Jan;18(1):72-9
10623695
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 11;356(2):115-24
17215529
Ann Oncol. 2006 Jul;17(7):1072-82
16670202
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 1;26(22):3763-9
18669464
Eur J Cancer. 2000 Apr;36 Suppl 1:S4-10
10785603
Support Care Cancer. 1999 Jul;7(4):271-9
10423054
Cancer. 1997 Oct 15;80(8 Suppl):1588-94
9362426
Cancer Radiother. 2005 Nov;9(6-7):449-51
16219481
Cancer. 2004 Jun 15;100(12):2613-21
15197804
Ann Oncol. 2005 Apr;16(4):579-84
15734776
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Dec 1;21(23):4277-84
14581438
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Jun 2;96(11):879-82
15173273
Cancer. 2003 Oct 15;98(8):1735-44
14534891
Support Care Cancer. 2001 Oct;9(7):545-51
11680835
Cancer. 2003 Sep 1;98(5):962-9
12942563
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Aug 15;21(16):3150-7
12915606
J Support Oncol. 2006 Jul-Aug;4(7):341-7
16892696