Search

Summary: This study assessed the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan, using bone mineral density (BMD) efficacy data. Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower cost than teriparatide/alendronate. Introduction: This study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japanese women previously treated with bisphosphonates. Methods: A Markov model was used to assess the relative cost effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab versus 2 years of teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Outcomes for a cohort of women with a mean age of 78 years, a T-score ≤−2.5 and a previous fragility fracture were simulated over a lifetime horizon. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and used a discount rate of 2% per annum. To inform relative fracture incidence, the bone mineral density (BMD) advantage of romosozumab over teriparatide was translated into relative risks of fracture, using relationships provided by a meta-regression of osteoporosis therapy trials. Outcomes were assessed in terms of lifetime costs (2020 US dollars) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: Base case results showed that, compared with teriparatide/alendronate, romosozumab/alendronate reduced costs by $5134 per patient and yielded 0.045 additional QALYs. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that results are robust to uncertainty in model assumptions and inputs. Conclusion: Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower total cost than teriparatide/alendronate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: A novel cost-effectiveness model framework was developed to incorporate the elevated fracture risk associated with a recent fracture and to allow sequential osteoporosis therapies to be evaluated. Treating patients with severe osteoporosis after a recent fracture with a bone-forming agent followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared with antiresorptive therapy alone. Incorporating these novel technical attributes in economic evaluations can support appropriate policy and reimbursement decision-making. Purpose: To develop a cost-effectiveness model accommodating increased fracture risk after a recent fracture and treatment sequencing. Methods: A micro-simulation cost-utility model was developed to accommodate both treatment sequencing and increased risk with recent fracture. The risk of fracture was estimated and simulated using the FRAX® algorithms combined with Swedish registry data on imminent fracture relative risk. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, a sequential treatment starting with a bone-forming agent for 12 months followed by an antiresorptive agent for 48 months initiated immediately after a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) in a 70-year-old woman with a T-score of 2.5 or less was compared to an antiresorptive treatment alone for 60 months. The model was populated with data relevant for a UK population reflecting a personal social service perspective. Results: The cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the base-case setting was estimated at £34,584. Sensitivity analyses revealed the sequential treatment to be cost-saving compared with administering a bone-forming treatment alone. Without simulating an elevated fracture risk immediately after a recent fracture, the cost per QALY changed from £34,584 to £62,184. Conclusion: Incorporating imminent fracture risk in economic evaluations has a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness when evaluating fracture prevention treatments in patients with osteoporosis who sustained a recent fracture. Bone-forming treatment followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared to antiresorptive therapy alone depending on treatment acquisition costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]