Comparing cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for the treatment of bone metastases.

backgroundBone metastases from various cancers have been traditionally treated with bisphosphonates, such as zoledronic acid (ZA), to prevent future skeletal-related events (SREs). Denosumab (Dmab) has been shown to have more advantages in preventing SREs in clinical trials than ZA, but the cost to administer Dmab is significantly higher.

methodsA literature review was conducted to investigate the methodologies used to compare the cost-effectiveness of Dmab and ZA. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched systematically for all cost-effectiveness analyses published between January week 1, 2006 to August week 1, 2012. Search strategies were designed to retrieve articles analyzing the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of Dmab compared to ZA in patients with bone metastases. From 12 references obtained in the initial database search, eight satisfied the predetermined criteria for full article review. Articles were analyzed for incremental costs per skeletal-related event avoided or incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.

resultsAll the studies identified received funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals (the manufacturer of ZA) or Amgen Incorporated (the manufacturer of Dmab). The studies looked at the economic analysis using different associated costs and over various time periods, ranging from a 1-year to a lifetime time horizon.

conclusionIt is not clear whether the methods used across studies are consistent, which may account for the differences between estimated costs and effects. Future research is suggested to explore the cost-effectiveness between Dmab and ZA using a standardize time frame and endpoint.