A systematic review of cost‑effectiveness analyses of sequential treatment for osteoporosis
Guangyi Yu1, Suiju Tong1, Jinyu Liu2
1Department of Pharmacy, People's Hospital of Dongxihu District, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Abstract:
Sequential treatment of osteoporosis has been increasingly mentioned in recent years. However, the corresponding systematic review has not been reported. This study aims to systematically review and assess all full-text pharmacoeconomic studies of sequential treatment for osteoporosis. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), CNKI, and Wanfang Database to identify original articles, published before June 17, 2022. The quality of included articles was evaluated by the updated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF). In general, ten articles were included in this review. For the comparison between sequential treatment and bisphosphonate monotherapy, more than 75% of studies demonstrated the sequential treatment was cost-effective or dominant, with the exception of sequential treatment involving teriparatide. When the comparisons occurred between the two sequential treatment groups, the sequential treatments associated with either abaloparatide or romosozumab were cost-effective or dominant compared to the sequential treatment involving teriparatide. Several major key drivers of cost-effectiveness included drug cost, medication persistence and adherence, drug effect on fracture risk, offset effect, time horizon, and baseline fracture risk. The most of studies were identified as high quality in CHEERS (2022) and ESCEO-IOF. The cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment for osteoporosis is influenced by multiple factors. Generally, the sequential treatments involving abaloparatide, romosozumab, denosumab, and bisphosphonates may be considered as the preferred option for osteoporosis with high fracture risk, while the sequential treatment with teriparatide was not a cost-effectiveness strategy. The ESCEO-IOF and CHEER (2022) increase the transparency, comparability, extrapolation, and quality of research, engage patients and the general public in research on health services and policies, and help improve the quality of health technology assessment.
More Related Videos
07:12Semiautomated Longitudinal Microcomputed Tomography-based Quantitative Structural Analysis of a Nude Rat Osteoporosis-related Vertebral Fracture Model
Published on: September 28, 2017
06:59Author Spotlight: An Economic and Efficient Method for Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Microarchitecture in a Murine Osteoporosis Model
Published on: September 8, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Osteoclasts in Bone Remodeling
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Bone Disorders
Bone deposition is also affected by the levels of sex hormones like estrogen and testosterone that promote osteoblast activity and bone matrix synthesis. When the level of these hormones decreases due to aging, it causes a reduction in bone deposition. As a result, bone resorption by osteoclasts...
