Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39365433›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2024

Cost-effectiveness intervention thresholds for romosozumab and teriparatide in the treatment of osteoporosis in the UK.

Fredrik Borgström, Mattias Lorentzon, Helena Johansson, Nicholas C Harvey, Eugene McCloskey, Damon Willems, Douglas Knutsson, John A Kanis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Fredrik BorgströmQuantify Research, Stockholm, Sweden. fredrik.borgstrom@quantifyresearch.com.
Mattias LorentzonMary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Helena JohanssonMary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nicholas C HarveyMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Eugene McCloskeyNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Damon WillemsUCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium.
Douglas KnutssonQuantify Research, Stockholm, Sweden.
John A KanisMary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate or sequential teriparatide-to-alendronate can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture. PURPOSE: To estimate the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) at which sequential treatment with romosozumab or teriparatide followed by alendronate, compared with alendronate alone, becomes cost-effective in a UK setting.

methodsA microsimulation model with a Markov structure was used to simulate fractures, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), in women receiving sequential treatment with either romosozumab or teriparatide followed by alendronate, compared with alendronate alone. Patients aged 50 to 90 years with a recent MOF, hip or spine fracture were followed from the start of a 5-year treatment until the age of 100 years or death. The analysis had a healthcare perspective. Efficacy of romosozumab, teriparatide and alendronate was derived from phase III randomised controlled trials. Resource use and unit costs were derived from the literature. Cost-effectiveness intervention threshold (CEIT), defined as the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture at which treatment becomes cost-effective, was compared with clinically appropriate intervention thresholds for bone-forming treatment in women with very high fracture risk as recommended by the UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG).

resultsThe base case analysis showed that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate treatment was cost-effective from a 10-year MOF probability of 18-35% and above depending on age and site of sentinel fracture at a willingness to pay (WTP) of £30,000. For teriparatide-to-alendronate, treatment was cost-effective at a 10-year MOF probability of 27-57%. The results were sensitive to pricing of the drugs but relatively insensitive to treatment duration, romosozumab persistence assumptions, and site of sentinel fracture. The CEITs for romosozumab-to-alendronate treatment were lower than the clinical thresholds from the age of 70 years meaning that treatment could be considered both cost-effective and aligned with the NOGG treatment guidelines. By contrast, for teriparatide-to-alendronate the CEITs were higher than the clinical thresholds irrespective of age. However, cost-effective scenarios were found in the presence of strong clinical risk factors in addition to a recent sentinel fracture.

conclusionThe results of this study indicate that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate or teriparatide-to-alendronate treatment can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture.

Indexed as

AlendronateAntibodies, MonoclonalBone Density Conservation AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsMarkov ChainsOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTeriparatideAgedAged, 80 and overDrug Administration ScheduleDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansAlendronateAntibodies, MonoclonalBone Density Conservation AgentsromosozumabTeriparatideCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationFRAXIntervention thresholdsMarkov microsimulation modelOsteoporosisRecent fracture

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.