Karen Chung

Pain outcomes in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases: results from a randomized, double-blind study of denosumab and zoledronic acid.

In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of denosumab versus zoledronic acid (ZA) on pain in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases.

Bone-Related Complications and Quality of Life in Advanced Breast Cancer: Results from a Randomized Phase III Trial of Denosumab versus Zoledronic Acid

Purpose: Denosumab was shown to be superior to zoledronic acid in preventing skeletal related events (SRE) in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases in a randomized, double-blind phase III study. We evaluated further results from this study related to skeletal complications and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Experimental Design: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 1,026) and intravenous placebo, or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg (n = 1,020) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks. Analyses reported here include the proportion of patients with one or multiple on-study SREs, time to first radiation to bone, time to first SRE or hypercalcemia of malignancy, and change in HRQoL (functional assessment of cancer therapy–general). Results: Fewer patients receiving denosumab than zoledronic acid had an on-study SRE (31% vs. 36%, P = 0.006). The incidence of first radiation to bone was 12% (n = 123) with denosumab versus 16% (n = 162) with zoledronic acid. Denosumab prolonged the time to first radiation to bone by 26% versus zoledronic acid (HR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–0.94, P = 0.012) and prolonged the time to first SRE or hypercalcemia of malignancy by 18% (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.95; P = 0.007). Ten percent more patients had a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL with denosumab relative to zoledronic acid, regardless of baseline pain levels. Conclusions: Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in reducing bone-related complications of metastatic breast cancer and maintained HRQoL, providing an efficacious, well-tolerated treatment option for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 18(17); 4841–9. ©2012 AACR.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States.

Abstract Objective: With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were

Clinical benefit in patients with metastatic bone disease: Results of a phase 3 study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid

49,405,

Effects of denosumab on pain and analgesic use in giant cell tumor of bone: Interim results from a phase II study

78,915, and

Utilities associated with subcutaneous injections and intravenous infusions for treatment of patients with bone metastases

67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were

Healthcare costs associated with skeletal-related events in breast cancer patients with bone metastases

8567,

Time associated with intravenous zoledronic acid administration in patients with breast or prostate cancer and bone metastasis.

13,557, and

A systematic literature review of cardiovascular event utilities

10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates. Limitations: Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration. Conclusion: Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.

Weighing bone-targeted treatment options for patients with solid tumours and skeletal complications from metastatic disease

BACKGROUND Patients with metastatic bone disease are living longer in the metastatic stage due to improvements in cancer therapy, making strategies to prevent the aggravation of bone disease and its complications, such as skeletal-related events (SREs) and pain, increasingly important. PATIENTS AND RESULTS In this phase 3 trial in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma, denosumab reduced the risk of radiation to bone by 22% relative to zoledronic acid (P = 0.026), prevented worsening of pain and pain interference (2-point increase in Brief Pain Inventory score; P < 0.05 versus zoledronic acid), and reduced the frequency of a shift from no/weak opioid analgesic use to strong opioids (P < 0.05 versus zoledronic acid at months 3-5). Denosumab delayed the time to moderate-to-severe pain compared with zoledronic acid in patients with mild or no pain at the baseline (P = 0.04), supporting early treatment. Health-related quality-of-life scores were similar in both groups. The number needed to treat to avoid one SRE for denosumab was 3 patient-years versus placebo and 10 patient-years versus zoledronic acid. CONCLUSION The use of denosumab was associated with better prevention of the complications of metastatic bone disease secondary to solid tumors or multiple myeloma versus zoledronic acid.