Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review of cost‑effectiveness analyses of sequential treatment for osteoporosis

  • Review
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data availability.

References

  1. Kanis JA et al (2020) Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 31(1):1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Black DM, Rosen CJ (2016) Clinical practice Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 374(3):254–262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rashki Kemmak A et al (2020) Economic burden of osteoporosis in the world: a systematic review. Med J Islam Repub Iran 34:154

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Munoz M, Robinson K, Shibli-Rahhal A (2020) Bone health and osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Clin Obstet Gynecol 63(4):770–787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: The Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society'' Editorial, P (2021) Management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: the 2021 position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause 28(9): 973–997.

  6. Curtis EM et al (2016) Epidemiology of fractures in the United Kingdom 1988–2012: variation with age, sex, geography, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Bone 87:19–26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kanis JA et al (2019) Executive summary of the European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 104(3):235–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Parthan A et al (2013) Cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis in the US. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11(5):485–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chinese Medical Association (2019) Epidemiological survey of osteoporosis in China and “Healthy Bones” special action results released.

  10. Liu H, Li B (2017) Prospect of combination and sequential therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Pharm Des 23(41):6251–6255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheng C, Wentworth K, Shoback DM (2020) New Frontiers in Osteoporosis Therapy. Annu Rev Med 71:277–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Curtis EM et al (2022) Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments. Aging-Clinical & Experimental Research 34(4):695–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Langdahl B (2020) Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with bone-forming and antiresorptive treatments: combined and sequential approaches. Bone 139:115516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Frost HM (1979) Treatment of osteoporoses by manipulation of coherent bone cell populations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 143:227–244

    Google Scholar 

  15. Abrahamsen B (2015) Bone: sequential osteoporosis treatment–the order of things. Nat Rev Endocrinol 11(10):570–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schafer AL et al (2012) Six months of parathyroid hormone (1–84) administered concurrently versus sequentially with monthly ibandronate over two years: the PTH and ibandronate combination study (PICS) randomized trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97(10):3522–3529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Reginster J et al (2019) Abaloparatide for risk reduction of nonvertebral and vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 30(7):1465–1473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Reginster JY et al (2018) Effect of a sequential treatment combining abaloparatide and alendronate for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Expert Opin Pharmacother 19(2):159–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hiligsmann M et al (2015) A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 33(3):205–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Li N et al (2021) An updated systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 39(2):181–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Page MJ et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Husereau D et al (2022) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Value Health 25(1):3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. World Congress on Osteoporosis (2020) Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (WCO-IOF-ESCEO 2020): ESPRM-ESCEO-IOF symposium abstracts. Osteoporos Int 31(Suppl 1):71–73

    Google Scholar 

  24. Le QA et al (2019) Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential treatment of abaloparatide followed by alendronate versus teriparatide followed by alendronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in the United States. Ann Pharmacother 53(2):134–143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Soreskog E et al (2021) Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 32(3):585–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Mori T et al (2021) Cost-effectiveness of sequential daily teriparatide/weekly alendronate compared with alendronate monotherapy for older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in Japan. Arch Osteoporos 16(1):72

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. You R et al (2022) Cost-effectiveness of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. Front Pharmacol 13:816248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Mori T, Crandall CJ, Ganz DA (2019) Cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/alendronate versus alendronate-alone strategies in high-risk osteoporotic women in the US: analyzing the impact of generic/biosimilar teriparatide. JBMR Plus 3(11):e10233

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. You R et al (2022) Cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. Front Public Health 10:794861

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hiligsmann M et al (2020) Cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide followed by alendronate vs. alendronate monotherapy in women at increased risk of fracture a US payer perspective. Semin Arthritis Rheum 50(3):394–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hiligsmann M et al (2019) Cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide vs teriparatide for United States women at increased risk of fracture. Semin Arthritis Rheum 49(2):184–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mori T et al (2021) Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate for older osteoporotic women in Japan. Arch Osteoporos 16(1):113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hagino H et al (2021) Cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide for severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan. Osteoporos Int 32(10):2011–2021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Stahl JE (2008) Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26(2):131–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Min C et al (2021) An overview of the characteristics and quality assessment criteria in systematic review of pharmacoeconomics. PLoS ONE 16(2):e0246080

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Azharuddin M et al (2020) Systematic evidence of health economic evaluation of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a quality appraisal. Osteoporos Sarcopenia 6(2):39–52

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Morizio P, Burkhart JI, Ozawa S (2018) Denosumab: a unique perspective on adherence and cost-effectiveness compared with oral bisphosphonates in osteoporosis patients. Ann Pharmacother 52(10):1031–1041

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hamine S et al (2015) Impact of mHealth chronic disease management on treatment adherence and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 17(2):e52

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ha Dinh TT et al (2016) The effectiveness of the teach-back method on adherence and self-management in health education for people with chronic disease: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 14(1):210–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pisani P et al (2016) Major osteoporotic fragility fractures: risk factor updates and societal impact. World J Orthop 7(3):171–181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Bouxsein ML et al (2019) Change in bone density and reduction in fracture risk: a meta-regression of published trials. J Bone Miner Res 34(4):632–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hiligsmann, M., et al (2022) Improving the reporting of economic evaluation in osteoporosis: the value of CHEERS 2022 statement. Osteoporos Int

  43. Ni W, Jiang Y (2017) Evaluation on the cost-effective threshold of osteoporosis treatment on elderly women in China using discrete event simulation model. Osteoporos Int 28(2):529–538

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sugrue DM et al (2019) Economic modelling of chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review to inform conceptual model design. Pharmacoeconomics 37(12):1451–1468

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Caro JJ, Moller J (2016) Advantages and disadvantages of discrete-event simulation for health economic analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 16(3):327–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Milne R, Carswell C (2022) CHEERS to 30 years of pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 40(1):5–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Guangyi Yu and Suiju Tong have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, People’s Hospital of Dongxihu District, Wuhan, Hubei, China

    Guangyi Yu, Suiju Tong, Min Wan & Sujuan Li

  2. Department of Pharmacy, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China

    Jinyu Liu

  3. Department of Pharmacy, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1277 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei, China

    Yuansheng Wan & Ruxu You

Authors
  1. Guangyi Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suiju Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jinyu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuansheng Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Min Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sujuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ruxu You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruxu You.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 33 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 39 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, G., Tong, S., Liu, J. et al. A systematic review of cost‑effectiveness analyses of sequential treatment for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 34, 641–658 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06626-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06626-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation