ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Fracture Prevention in Postmenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer in China.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Fracture Prevention in Postmenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer in China.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAromatase inhibitors (AIs) significantly increase the risk of osteoporosis and related fractures in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive early breast cancer (EBC), posing a substantial clinical and economic burden. Effective fracture prevention strategies are critical, especially in resource-constrained settings such as China.
methodsA Markov microsimulation model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention strategies for 60-year-old postmenopausal women with HR-positive EBC treated with AIs in China. Six strategies were compared: (a) no intervention, (b) one-time bone mineral density (BMD) screening followed by anti-osteoporotic medication for patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia, (c) annual BMD screening followed by anti-osteoporotic medication for patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia and (d) universal anti-osteoporotic medication without prior BMD screening. Outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus China's willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (3 × GDP/capita = $38 223/QALY).
resultsAll interventions reduced fractures but increased costs versus no intervention. For women aged 60-64 years, one-time BMD screening followed by therapy for osteoporosis (T-score ≤ -2.5) achieved an ICER of $17 368/QALY, below the WTP threshold. Annual screening yielded marginally higher QALYs (+0.0096) but higher costs (+$895.09), resulting in an ICER exceeding $38 223/QALY. For women ≥ 65 years, both one-time screening for osteoporosis or osteopenia and universal therapy were cost-effective. Universal therapy dominated in high-risk subgroups (history of falls/fractures), achieving the highest QALY gains.
conclusionsOne-time BMD screening with selective alendronate for osteoporosis is cost-effective for Chinese women aged ≥ 60 receiving AIs, aligning with China's healthcare constraints. Universal therapy becomes favourable for older or high-risk subgroups. These data-driven findings support tailored strategies to optimise bone health management and resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.