2). They showed the estimated ICERs to be modestly sensitive to changes in fracture disutility and fracture cost and quite sensitive to discount rates and changes in fracture risk or mortality excess. The ICERs decreased by 24 % for lower drug cost (−15 %) and by 38 % when fracture risk was increased by 25 %. The ICER buy Quisinostat was also reduced when assuming no adverse events or no monitoring cost with strontium ranelate. Fig. 2 Tornado diagram for deterministic sensitivity analyses on the cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate compared with no treatment in men aged 73 years with BMD T-score

≤−2.5 using efficacy data from the intent-to-treat analysis The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analyses are presented as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in Fig. 3. The curves indicate the probability that strontium ranelate is cost-effective as a function of the decision maker’s willingness to pay per one QALY gained. At an assumed willingness to pay of €45,000 per QALY, strontium ranelate was cost-effective in 62.0 % and 93.0 % of the simulations for men aged 73 years with a BMD T-score ≤−2.5 aged using efficacy data from the entire population of the clinical trials and from the per-protocol analyses, respectively. Fig. 3 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves of strontium ranelate compared with no treatment

in men aged 73 years selleckchem with BMD T-score ≤−2.5 according to anti-fracture efficacy. ITT intention-to-treat, PPS per protocol studies Discussion The results of this study suggest that,

under the assumption of same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women, strontium ranelate is cost-effective compared with no treatment, at commonly accepted thresholds, for men who are similar to patients included in the MALEO Trial. This study provides the first pharmacoeconomic evaluation of strontium ranelate in male population. Previous studies have shown that strontium ranelate was cost-effective for post-menopausal women with low BMD [10–14]. Treatment with strontium ranelate was compared with no treatment. Other treatments have been approved for the treatment of male osteoporosis. Data are currently limited else on the cost-effectiveness of treating male osteoporosis [53]. In a Swedish setting, treating osteoporotic men with alendronate was shown to be cost-effective versus placebo under the assumption of the same anti-fracture efficacy of alendronate for men as for women [54]. In another analysis, the threshold probability for cost-effective treatment ($500 per year, 35 % efficacy) was a 10-year risk of hip fracture that ranged from 2 % at the age of 50 years to 6.5 % at the age of 80 years [55]. Selleck Evofosfamide Comparison with other drugs could be performed in the future as it was done in women using indirect comparison [12].