Recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis: outcomes of an experts' consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the US branch of the International Osteoporosis Foundation

Cost-effectiveness of FRAX®-based intervention thresholds for management of osteoporosis in Indian women: a Markov microsimulation model analysis

A cost-effectiveness analysis of FRAX® intervention thresholds (ITs) in Indian women over 50 years indicated that generic alendronate was cost-effective for age-dependent major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) ITs and hip fracture (HF) ITs starting at ages 60 and 65 years for full and real-world adherence, respectively. Alendronate was cost-effective at fixed MOF IT of 14% and HF IT of 3.5%, regardless of age.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis represents a significant public health challenge in India, with an increasing economic burden due to the aging population. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®)-based intervention thresholds (ITs) for managing osteoporosis with generic alendronate in Indian women.

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model, adapted to the Indian healthcare context, was used to simulate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with different treatment strategies. The one-time gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (estimated at INR 1,97,468/QALY gained) was used as the cost-effectiveness threshold.

RESULTS

The model revealed that generic alendronate is cost-effective for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) ITs beginning at age 60 years with full adherence-incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of INR 102,151 per QALY gained, and age 65 with real-world adherence-ICER of INR 28,203 per QALY gained (conversion rate used is 1 US dollar (USD) = INR 83.97 and 1 EURO = INR 92.70). Hip fracture (HF) ITs showed similar cost-effectiveness at ages 60 (ICER of INR 67,144) and was the dominant strategy (i.e., more QALYs for lower costs) at ≥ 65 years. Fixed ITs of 14% for MOF and 3.5% for HF proved cost-effective across all age groups (dominant strategy for ages ≥ 65 years). Limitations of our study include the reliance on fracture incidence data from Singaporean Indians and variability in fracture prevalence across India.

CONCLUSION

The results support the integration of FRAX®-based fixed ITs from the age of 50 years and age-based ones from the age of 65 years in India to optimize resource allocation and improve osteoporosis management.

Cost-utility of lumbar interbody fusion surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a common surgical intervention for treating lumbar degenerative disorders. Increasing demand has contributed to ever-increasing healthcare expenditure and economic burden. To address this, cost-utility analyses (CUAs) compare value in the context of patient outcomes. CUAs quantify health improvements using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing decision-makers to determine procedure value.

PURPOSE

While there is a growing body of literature assessing LIF value, a comprehensive synthesis of LIF CUAs is lacking. This systematic review aims to address this gap by assessing all available CUAs of LIF techniques, to support evidence-based practices that improve outcomes and promote efficient resource use.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

STUDY SAMPLE

This study sample consisted of adult patients with lumbar degenerative conditions specifically treated with lumbar interbody fusion, including grade I or II degenerative spondylolisthesis, lumbar spinal stenosis, disc degeneration, and spondylosis, with or without low back and/or leg pain.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Direct (healthcare) and indirect (non-healthcare) costs, cost sources and calculation methods, utility scores, QALY gain, cost-utility, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and willingness-to-pay thresholds. Outcomes were reported as median and interquartile ranges (IQR).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from inception to October 23, 2023, for CUAs reporting QALYs and costs of LIF procedures. Relevant studies were selected and data extracted. Subgroup analyses compared minimally invasive versus open surgery and anterior versus posterior approaches. Study quality was assessed using the CHEC-Extended tool. Quantitative meta-analysis was not performed due to methodological heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Out of 2047 identified studies, 14 met inclusion criteria. The mean CHEC-Extended score was 72.1%. Most studies reported on TLIF (n=11) and utilized EQ-5D questionnaire to calculate utility (n=9). Direct costs were sourced from institutional databases, Medicare, DRGs, Redbook, and a variety of other sources. Most indirect costs were estimated from productivity loss. TLIF demonstrated the highest median QALY gain over 1 year (0.43, IQR 0.121-0.705), while PLIF was highest over 2 years (1.33). ALIF was most favorable over 1 year ($30901/QALY) and OLIF was most favorable over 2 years ($11187/QALY). PLIF, TLIF, and LLIF exhibited similar cost-utility over 2 years ($44383, $45628, $48576/QALY). MIS was substantially favorable to OS at 1 year ($42635 vs. $226304), though similar at 2 years ($48576 vs. $45628/QALY). Anterior approach was favorable to posterior approach at 1 year ($30901.5 vs. $81038) and 2 years ($29881.9 vs. $44383). Cost-utility comparisons substantially varied and were sensitive to utility measures, study methodology, cost sourcing, and follow-up duration.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review to comprehensively assess CUAs of all LIF approaches in the existing literature. While certain approaches, such as ALIF and OLIF, may demonstrate favorable outcomes, these conclusions are limited by high methodological heterogeneity and a limited study pool. By addressing existing gaps in study design and reporting, future comparative cost-utility research can better inform evidence-based decision-making and optimize the value of spinal surgical care.

Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in the United States

Radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry (REMS) is an innovative, non-ionizing diagnostic technique that has shown high accuracy and precision, making it a promising alternative to DXA for osteoporosis diagnosis in clinical settings. With economic considerations playing an increasingly crucial role in healthcare decisions, this study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of improved osteoporosis diagnosis using REMS followed by treatment in the United States. A microsimulation-based Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (in US$2022) for REMS followed by treatment vs no diagnosis and treatment in US women aged 50 yr and older with osteoporosis. Women were categorized as high risk (receiving alendronate monotherapy for 5 yr) or very high risk (receiving an 18-mo course of anabolic treatment, abaloparatide, followed by 5 yr of alendronate). The study evaluated 2 medication adherence scenarios: one assuming full adherence to treatment and the other reflecting real-world adherence. The results indicate that REMS followed by treatment is associated with improved health outcomes, including more QALYs and fewer fractures, and reduced fracture-related costs compared to no diagnosis and treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REMS was estimated at $33 891 and $49 198 per QALY gained, under the full adherence and real-world adherence scenarios, respectively. These values are below the US cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Moreover, a 5% increase in the diagnosis and treatment of women over 50 yr at high and very high risk of fractures using REMS is projected to save approximately 30 000 life yr, 43 500 QALYs, and prevent 100 000 fractures over a lifetime under real-world medication adherence. In conclusion, this study suggests that REMS is a cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in US women, offering substantial potential economic benefits and improved health outcomes.

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

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.

METHODS

A 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).

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Impact of Structural Differences on the Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was developed to improve the accuracy of prenatal screening to detect chromosomal abnormalities. Published economic analyses have yielded different incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs), leading to conclusions of NIPT being dominant, cost-effective, and cost-ineffective. These analyses have used different model structures, and the extent to which these structural variations have contributed to differences in ICERs is unclear.

AIM

To assess the impact of different model structures on the cost-effectiveness of NIPT for the detection of trisomy 21 (T21; Down syndrome).

METHODS

A systematic review identified economic models comparing NIPT to conventional screening. The key variations in identified model structures were the number of health states and modeling approach. New models with different structures were developed in TreeAge and populated with consistent parameters to enable a comparison of the impact of selected structural variations on results.

RESULTS

The review identified 34 economic models. Based on these findings, demonstration models were developed: 1) a decision tree with 3 health states, 2) a decision tree with 5 health states, 3) a microsimulation with 3 health states, and 4) a microsimulation with 5 health states. The base-case ICER from each model was 1) USD$34,474 (2023)/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 2) USD$14,990 (2023)/QALY, (3) USD$54,983 (2023)/QALY, and (4) NIPT was dominated.

CONCLUSION

Model-structuring choices can have a large impact on the ICER and conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness, which may inadvertently affect policy decisions to support or not support funding for NIPT. The use of reference models could improve international consistency in health policy decision making for prenatal screening.

HIGHLIGHTS

NIPT is a clinical area in which a variety of modeling approaches have been published, with wide variation in reported cost-effectiveness.This study shows that when broader contextual factors are held constant, varying the model structure yields results that range from NIPT being less effective and more expensive than conventional screening (i.e., NIPT was dominated) through to NIPT being more effective and more expensive than conventional screening with an ICER of USD$54,983 (2023)/QALY.Model-structuring choices may inadvertently affect policy decisions to support or not support funding of NIPT. Reference models could improve international consistency in health policy decision making for prenatal screening.

Cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent-adherence intervention in fracture liaison services

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a multi-component adherence intervention (MCAI), including a patient decision aid and motivational interviewing, compared to usual care in patients with a recent fracture attending fracture liaison services (FLS) and eligible for anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data on AOM initiation and one-year persistence were collected from a quasi-experimental study conducted between 2019 and 2023 in two Dutch FLS centers. An individual level, state-transition Markov model was used to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with a societal perspective of MCAI vs usual care. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted including variation in additional FLS and MCAI costs (no MCAI cost in baseline).

RESULTS

MCAI was associated with gain in QALYs (0.0012) and reduction in costs (-€16) and is therefore dominant. At the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY, MCAI remained cost-effective when increasing costs of the FLS visit or the yearly maintenance cost for MCAI up to +€60. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated MCAI to be dominant in 54% of the simulations and cost-effective in 87% with a threshold of €50,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

A MCAI implemented in FLS centers may lead to cost-effective allocation of resources in FLS care, depending on extra costs.

Adoption of a Societal Perspective in Economic Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Conceptual Paper

Economic evaluations are used to compare the costs and consequences of healthcare interventions, including those for musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders, which are very common and a major source of morbidity and absence from work. Reimbursement decisions for interventions for MSK disorders by decision-makers rely on the findings of economic evaluations, the design and results of which depend largely on the perspective adopted. Despite methodological advancements in economic evaluations, there are no clear guidelines on the perspective to adopt. This paper explores the adoption of a societal perspective in economic evaluations of MSK disorders. Within health economics evaluations, the most commonly used perspectives include the payer perspective, the healthcare perspective, and the societal perspective. To facilitate optimal resource allocation decisions in order to reduce the significant economic burden of MSK disorders and improve the health outcomes of individuals with these disorders, all costs and benefits associated with interventions for them should be included. Thus, the societal perspective is arguably a preferable option to the others for economic evaluations of interventions for MSK disorders.

The cost-effectiveness of a co-managed care model for elderly hip fracture patients in China: a modelling study

Background

The clinical effectiveness of multidisciplinary co-managed care for hip fracture patients in China has been demonstrated in a multicenter non-randomized controlled study. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the co-managed care.

Methods

The study is based on a multicenter clinical trial (n = 2071) in China. We developed a state transition microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the co-managed care compared with usual care for hip fracture patients from healthcare system perspective. The costs incorporated into the model included hospitalization costs, post-discharge expenses, and secondary fracture therapy costs. Effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and effects were discounted at 5% annually. A simulation cycle length of 1-year and a lifetime horizon were employed. The cost-effectiveness threshold was established at USD 37,118. To address uncertainties, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.

Findings

In the base case analysis, the co-managed care group had a lifetime cost of USD 31,571 and achieved an effectiveness of 3.22 QALYs, whereas the usual care group incurred a cost of USD 27,878 and gained 2.85 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 9981 per QALY gained; thus the co-managed care model was cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the age of having hip fractures and hospitalization costs in the intervention group.

Interpretation

The co-managed care in hip fracture patients represents value for money, and should be scaled up and prioritized for funding in China.

Funding

The study is supported by Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research (2022-1-2071, 2018-1-2071).

Designing economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in maternal health care: A guide for clinical trial design

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations are being conducted with increasing frequency in the maternity care setting, with more randomized controlled trials containing a health economic component. Key emerging criticisms of economic evaluation in maternity care are lack of robust data collection and measurement, inconsistencies in methodology, and lack of adherence to reporting guidelines.

METHODS

This article provides a guide to the design of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in maternal health. We include economic concepts and considerations for the maternity setting and provide examples from the UK and Australia.

RESULTS

There are many important considerations for the design of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. To be effective, researchers must select types of economic evaluation, which align with their study objectives; choose an appropriate evaluation perspective, time horizon, and discount rate; and identify accurate ways to measure and evaluate health outcomes and costs.

DISCUSSION

This guide is written for noneconomists and can be used for designing economic evaluations to be conducted as a part of clinical trials. We seek to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of economic evaluations in maternal health.

Effect of educational intervention on preventing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

In the experimental group, the average scores of knowledge, constructs of theory of planned behavior, nutrition, and walking had a significant enhancement compared to the control group after the educational intervention. After the intervention, the value of the lumbar spine bone mineral density T-score in the experimental group increased, while in the control group, it decreased.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is a global public health problem currently affecting millions of people worldwide and in Iran. This study was conducted to assess the effect of an educational intervention based on the theory of planned behavior on the prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

METHODS

This quasi-experimental study was performed on 160 women aging over 50 who were referred to health centers in Fasa City, Iran, in 2019. A simple random sampling method was applied to assign the participants into control and intervention groups (80 participants for each group). Data were gathered by questionnaires arranged based on the constructs of the theory of planned behavior, nutrition performance, and walking performance. The educational intervention included seven 50-minute educational sessions. The obtained data were analyzed using SPSS 22 software and Chi-square test, independent T-test, and paired T-test, and the significance level was considered 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean ages of the studied participants in the experimental and control groups were 59.18 ± 6.56 and 57.92 ± 5.70, respectively. In the experimental group, the average scores of knowledge, constructs of the theory of planned behavior, nutrition performance, and walking performance had a significant enhancement compared to the control group one year after the intervention (p < 0.001). At 12 months after the intervention, the value of the lumbar spine bone mineral density T-score in the experimental group increased, while in the control group, it reduced (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The theory of planned behavior affected nutrition and walking performance in osteoporosis prevention of subjects. This theory can be used as a framework for designing and performing educational interventions for preventing osteoporosis and promoting women's health.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fracture liaison services: a Markov model using Dutch real-world data

This study assessed the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service (FLS) compared to no-FLS in the Netherlands from a societal perspective and suggested that FLS was cost-effective in patients with a recent fracture aged 50 years and older. The implementation of FLS could lead to lifetime health-economic benefits.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to investigate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service (FLS) compared to no-FLS in the Netherlands from a societal perspective and using real-world data.

METHODS

Annual fracture incidence, treatment scenarios as well as treatment initiation in the years 2017-2019 were collected from a large secondary care hospital in the Netherlands. An individual-level, state transition model was designed to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Treatment pathways were differentiated by gender, presence of osteoporosis and/or prevalent vertebral fracture, and treatment status. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

For patients with a recent fracture aged 50 years and older, the presence of an FLS was associated with a lifetime €45 higher cost and 0.11 additional QALY gained leading to an ICER of €409 per QALY gained, indicating FLS was cost-effective compared to no-FLS at the Dutch threshold of €20,000/QALY. The FLS remained cost-effectiveness across different age categories. Our findings were robust in all one-way sensitivity analyses, the higher the treatment initiation rate in FLS, the greater the cost-effective of FLS. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that FLS was cost-effective in 90% of the simulations at the threshold of €20,000/QALY, with women 92% versus men 84% by gender.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first health-economic analysis of FLS in the Netherlands, suggesting the implementation of FLS could lead to lifetime health-economic benefits.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide in US men and women at very high risk of fractures

BACKGROUND

Osteoporotic-related fractures represent an increasing burden to patients, health care systems and society.

AIMS

This study estimated cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) followed by alendronate (ALN) compared to relevant alternative strategies in US men and women aged 50 to 80 years at very high fracture risk (bone mineral density T-score ≤  - 2.5 and a recent fracture).

METHODS

A lifetime Markov-based microsimulation model was used to estimate healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Comparators were sequential treatment with unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Analyses were conducted based on initial fracture site (hip, vertebral, or any fracture) and treatment efficacy data (derived from clinical trials or a recent network meta-analysis).

RESULTS

From all analyses completed, sequential ABL/ALN demonstrated more QALYs for lower healthcare costs versus unbranded TPTD/ALN. No treatment was dominated (higher costs for less QALYs) versus ALN monotherapy. Sequential ABL/ALN resulted in favorable cost-effectiveness (at US threshold of $150,000/QALY) versus generic ALN monotherapy in men aged ≥ 50 years with any fracture type, women aged ≥ 65 years with any fracture type, and women aged ≥ 55 years having a hip or vertebral fracture.

DISCUSSION

Similar cost-effectiveness of sequential ABL/ALN versus unbranded TPTD/ALN, ALN monotherapy, and no treatment was observed in both US men and women at very high fracture risk, with a moderate improvement in cost-effectiveness in men versus women and in patients with a hip or vertebral fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy with ABL/ALN was cost-effective in US men and women at very high risk of fractures.

Real-world evidence: new opportunities for osteoporosis research. Recommendations from a Working Group from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

This narrative review summarises the recommendations of a Working Group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for the conduct and reporting of real-world evidence studies with a focus on osteoporosis research.

PURPOSE

Vast amounts of data are routinely generated at every healthcare contact and activity, and there is increasing recognition that these real-world data can be analysed to generate scientific evidence. Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to delineate the natural history of disease, assess real-life drug effectiveness, understand adverse events and in health economic analysis. The aim of this work was to understand the benefits and limitations of this type of data and outline approaches to ensure that transparent and high-quality evidence is generated.

METHODS

A ESCEO Working Group was convened in December 2022 to discuss the applicability of RWE to osteoporosis research and approaches to best practice.

RESULTS

This narrative review summarises the agreed recommendations for the conduct and reporting of RWE studies with a focus on osteoporosis research.

CONCLUSIONS

It is imperative that research using real-world data is conducted to the highest standards with close attention to limitations and biases of these data, and with transparency at all stages of study design, data acquisition and curation, analysis and reporting to increase the trustworthiness of RWE study findings.

Advocating uniformity in spine surgery: a practical disease-specific guideline for trial-based economic evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Despite the availability of general and national guidelines for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations, there is heterogeneity in economic evolutions concerning spine surgery. This is partly the result of differing levels of adherence to the existing guidelines and the lack of disease-specific recommendations for economic evaluations. The extensive heterogeneity in study design, follow-up duration and outcome measurements limit the comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery. This study has three objectives: (1) to create disease-specific recommendations for the design and conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery, (2) to define recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery as a complement to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and (3) to discuss methodological challenges and defining the need for future research.

DESIGN

A modified Delphi method according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

SETTING

A four-step process was followed to create and validate disease-specific statements and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. Consensus was defined as >75% agreement.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 20 experts were included in the expert group. Validation of the final recommendations was obtained in a Delphi panel, which consisted of 40 researchers in the field who were not included in the expert group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure is a set of recommendations for the conduct and reporting, as a complement to the CHEERS 2022 checklist, of economic evaluations in spine surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 31 recommendations are made. The Delphi panel confirmed consensus on all of the recommendations in the proposed guideline.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an accessible and practical guideline for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. This disease-specific guideline is a complement to existing guidelines, and should aid in reaching uniformity and comparability.

Fractures in sub-Saharan Africa: epidemiology, economic impact and ethnography (Fractures-E 3): study protocol

Background: The population of older adults is growing in sub-Saharan Africa. Ageing exponentially increases fragility fracture risk. Of all global regions, Africa is projected to observe the greatest increase in fragility fractures. Fractures cause pain, disability and sometimes death, and management is expensive, often requiring complex healthcare delivery. For countries to plan future healthcare services, understanding is needed of fracture epidemiology, associated health service costs and the currently available healthcare resources. Methods:The Fractures-E 3 5-year mixed-methods research programme will investigate the epidemiology, economic impact, and treatment provision for fracture and wider musculoskeletal health in The Gambia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. These three countries are diverse in their geography, degree of urbanisation, maturity of health service infrastructure, and health profiles. The programme comprises five study types: (i) population-based cross-sectional studies to determine vertebral fracture prevalence. Secondary outcomes will include osteoarthritis and sarcopenia. Age- and sex-stratified household sampling will recruit 5030 adults aged 40 years and older; (ii) prospective cohort studies in adults aged 40 years and older will determine hip fracture incidence, associated risk factors, and outcomes over one year ( e.g. mortality, disability, health-related quality of life); (iii) economic studies of direct health costs of hip fracture with projection modelling of future national health costs and cost-effectiveness analyses of different hip fracture care pathways; (iv) national surveys of hip fracture services (including traditional bonesetters in The Gambia); and (v) ethnographic studies of hip fracture care provision and experiences will understand fracture service pathways. Conclusions:Greater understanding of current and expected fracture burdens, fracture risk factors, and existing fracture care provision, is intended to inform national clinical guidelines, health service policy and planning and future health service development in sub-Saharan Africa.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Abaloparatide (ABL) significantly increases bone mineral density in men with osteoporosis similar to what was reported in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost effectiveness of sequential treatment with ABL followed by alendronate (ALN) in men at high fracture risk was compared to relevant alternative treatments.

METHODS

A Markov-based microsimulation model based on a lifetime US healthcare decision maker perspective was developed to evaluate the cost (expressed in US$2021) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained of sequential ABL/ALN. Comparators were sequential treatment unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Discount rates of 3% were used. Consistent with practice guidelines, patients received 18 months of ABL or TPTD followed by ALN for 5 years, or 5 years of ALN monotherapy. Analyses were conducted in high-risk men aged over 50 years defined as having a bone mineral density T-score ≤-2.5 and a recent fracture. Time-specific risk of subsequent fracture after a recent fracture, incremental costs up to 5 years following fractures, real-world medication adherence, and mostly US men-specific data were included in the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results.

RESULTS

Over the full age range, sequential ABL/ALN led to more QALYs for lower costs than sequential unbranded TPTD/ALN, while no treatment was dominated (more QALYs, lower costs) by ALN monotherapy. The costs per QALY gained of sequential ABL/ALN were lower than the US threshold of US$150,000 versus generic ALN monotherapy. The probabilities that sequential ABL/ALN was cost effective compared to ALN monotherapy were estimated at 51% in men aged 50 years and between 88 and 90% in those aged ≥ 60 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy using ABL/ALN may be cost effective compared with generic ALN monotherapy in US men aged ≥ 50 years at high fracture risk, especially in those aged ≥ 60 years. Unbranded TPTD/ALN and no treatment were dominated interventions (less QALY, more costs) compared with ABL/ALN or ALN monotherapy.

Cost Effectiveness Analyses of Interventions for Osteoporosis in Men: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative for identifying and managing osteoporosis in men have increased substantially. With the approval of agents to treat men with osteoporosis, more economic evaluations have been conducted to assess the potential economic benefits of these interventions. Despite this concern, there is no specific overview of cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of osteoporosis in men.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims (1) to systematically review economic evaluations of interventions for osteoporosis in men; (2) to critically appraise the quality of included studies and the source of model input data; and (3) to investigate the comparability of results for studies including both men and women.

METHODS

A literature search mainly using MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases was undertaken to identify original articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2022. Studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis in men were included. The Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases and the International Osteoporosis Foundation osteoporosis-specific guideline was used to assess the quality of design, conduct, and reporting of included studies.

RESULTS

Of 2973 articles identified, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, classified into economic evaluations of active drugs (n = 8) or nutritional supplements (n = 4), intervention thresholds (n = 5), screening strategies (n = 6), and post-fracture care programs (n = 2). Most studies were conducted in European countries (n = 15), followed by North America (n = 9). Bisphosphonates (namely alendronate) and nutritional supplements were shown to be generally cost effective compared with no treatment in men over 60 years of age with osteoporosis or prior fractures. Two other studies suggested that denosumab was cost effective in men aged 75 years and older with osteoporosis compared with bisphosphates and teriparatide. Intervention thresholds at which bisphosphonates were found to be cost effective varied among studies with a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that ranged from 8.9 to 34.2% for different age categories. A few studies suggested cost effectiveness of screening strategies and post-fracture care programs in men. Similar findings regarding the cost effectiveness of drugs and intervention thresholds in women and men were captured, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men. The quality of the studies included had an average score of 18.8 out of 25 (range 13-23.5). Hip fracture incidence and mortality risk were mainly derived from studies in men, while fracture cost, treatment efficacy, and disutility were commonly derived from studies in women or studies combining both sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-osteoporosis drugs and nutritional supplements are generally cost effective in men with osteoporosis. Screening strategies and post-fracture care programs also showed economic benefits for men. Cost-effectiveness and intervention thresholds were generally similar in studies conducted in both men and women, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass to Prevent Fractures in Adults: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

This guideline updates the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations on pharmacologic treatment of primary osteoporosis or low bone mass to prevent fractures in adults.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of evidence and graded them using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system.

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The audience for this guideline includes all clinicians. The patient population includes adults with primary osteoporosis or low bone mass.

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for initial pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests that clinicians use bisphosphonates for initial pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males diagnosed with primary osteoporosis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2A

ACP suggests that clinicians use the RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) as a second-line pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects of bisphosphonates (conditional recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2B

ACP suggests that clinicians use the RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) as a second-line pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects of bisphosphonates (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests that clinicians use the sclerostin inhibitor (romosozumab, moderate-certainty evidence) or recombinant PTH (teriparatide, low-certainty evidence), followed by a bisphosphonate, to reduce the risk of fractures only in females with primary osteoporosis with very high risk of fracture (conditional recommendation).

RECOMMENDATION 4

ACP suggests that clinicians take an individualized approach regarding whether to start pharmacologic treatment with a bisphosphonate in females over the age of 65 with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of five drugs for treating postmenopausal women in the United States with osteoporosis and a very high fracture risk

PURPOSE

Five strategies were recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) guidelines for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) patients with a very high fracture risk. We aimed to assess their cost-effectiveness in the United States (US).

METHODS

A microsimulation Markov model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of five treatment strategies, including zoledronate, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab in PMO patients with a recent fracture from the healthcare perspective of the US. The data used in the model were obtained from published studies or online resources. Base-case analysis, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted for 65-, 70-, 75-, and 80-year-old patients.

RESULTS

In base case, at 65 years, zoledronate was the cheapest strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, which represent incremental costs per QALY gained) of denosumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab against zoledronate were $13,020/QALY (quality-adjusted years), $477,331 /QALY, $176,287/QALY, and $98,953/QALY, respectively. Under a willing-to-pay (WTP, which means the highest price a consumer will pay for one unit of a good of service) threshold of $150,000/QALY, denosumab and romosozumab were cost-effective against zoledronate. The PSA results showed that denosumab was the most cost-effective option with WTP thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY. The results were similar in other age groups. The DSA results indicated that the most common parameters that have important influence on the outcome were drug persistence, incidence of adverse events, the efficacy of drugs on hip fractures and the cost of the drug.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Among PMO patients with a very high fracture risk in the US, zoledronate is the cheapest strategy and denosumab is the most cost-effective choice among these five strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of selective bone densitometry using the osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians in multi-ethnic Asian population

Early detection and treatment of osteoporosis can help to prevent debilitating fractures in the elderly. The osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians can be used as a screening tool to stratify patients for bone densitometry. It is most cost-effective for post-menopausal women aged 70 and males aged 75.

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of selective bone densitometry (SBD) using the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) as a risk-stratifying tool for the three predominant races (Chinese, Malay and Indian) in Singapore.

METHODS

Decision analytical models were developed using a Markov model. Three scenarios were compared: no bone densitometry, SBD using the OSTA as a pre-screening tool and universal bone densitometry. Those diagnosed with osteoporosis were treated with five years of alendronate therapy. Data sources were from Singapore epidemiological studies, healthcare cost figures and published literature. Measurements include life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

Compared to no bone densitometry, SBD using the OSTA would cost between $40,679 and $73,909 per QALY gained for men aged 75-80 and $22,386 to $58,185 per QALY gained for post-menopausal women aged 70-80. Universal bone densitometry would cost $157,955 to $177,127 per QALY gained for men aged 75-80 and $40,179 to $66,112 per QALY gained for post-menopausal women aged 70 to 80 compared to SBD.

CONCLUSION

In general, osteoporosis screening was the most cost-effective for Malays and the least cost-effective for Indians. However, a general guideline should still be applied to the Singaporean population, as further explained later. Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for males would be using OSTA as a risk-stratifying tool at age 75. For post-menopausal women, SBD should be used for women aged 70, while universal bone densitometry should be used for women aged 75-80.

Novel formulations of oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis

Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of evidence; however, patient adherence to oral bisphosphonates remains poor in part due to complex dosing instructions and adverse events, including upper gastrointestinal symptoms. This problem has led to the development of novel oral bisphosphonate formulations. Buffered, effervescent alendronate is dissolved in water and so seeks to reduce upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, and gastro-resistant risedronate aims to reduce the complexity of dosing procedure (e.g. fasting prior to consumption) whilst still maintaining the efficacy of fracture risk reduction. Clinical trials and real-world data have been employed to demonstrate some benefits in terms of reduced upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, adherence, persistence and health economic outcomes. This report describes the result of an ESCEO (European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis) expert working group, which explores where oral bisphosphonates sit in current clinical practice guidelines, review their risk-benefit profile and the consequences of poor adherence before exploring novel oral bisphosphonate formulations and their potential clinical and health economic impact. Further research is required but there are signs that these novel, oral bisphosphonate formulations may lead to improved tolerance of oral bisphosphonates and thus, improved adherence and fracture outcomes.

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of fracture liaison services in China

This study is a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of fracture liaison services (FLS) in China, suggesting that FLS could potentially lead to lifetime cost-saving in patients who have experienced a fracture. However, Chinese-specific real-world data is needed to confirm the results of our study.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of fracture liaison services (FLS) from the Chinese healthcare perspective with a lifetime horizon.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of FLS compared to no-FLS. The evaluation was conducted in patients aged 65 years with a recent fracture. Treatment pathways were differentiated by gender, FLS attendance, osteoporosis diagnosis, treatment initiation, and adherence. Given the uncertainty in FLS cost, the cost in the base-case analysis was assumed at US$200. Analyses were also performed to determine the maximum cost for making the FLS cost-saving and cost-effective at the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

When compared with no-FLS, the FLS was dominant (lower costs, higher quality-adjusted life years) in our target population at the FLS cost of US$200 per patient. For every 100 patients who were admitted to the FLS, approximately four hip fractures, nine clinical vertebral fractures, and three wrist fractures would be avoided over their lifetimes. Our findings were robust to numerous one-way sensitivity analyses; however, the FLS was not cost-effective in patients aged 80 years and older.

CONCLUSION

FLS could potentially lead to lifetime cost-saving in patients who have experienced a fracture. Our study informs the potential cost-effectiveness of FLS and the knowledge gap in China; more future research incorporating Chinese-specific real-world data are needed to confirm the results of our study and to better evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FLS in China.

The Potential Economic Benefits of an Alarm Service in Order Communication Systems in Korea: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Less-Intensive Fracture Liaison Services Based on a Prospective Cohort Study

An alarm service in an order communication system (OCS) was found to be effective at increasing the rate of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing and treatment in South Korea, but its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. We used a Markov model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the alarm service in the OCS compared to no alarm service for the post-fracture management of subjects aged 50 years and older with fragility fractures. DXA testing and treatment data were collected from a prospective cohort study. The prevalence of osteoporotic fractures, the subsequent risk of hip fracture, and healthcare costs were obtained using Korea National Health Insurance claims data. The lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a healthcare perspective. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the uncertainty of the results. The alarm service increased treatment by 125 per 1000 patients and prevented 3 hip fractures per 1000 patients. The alarm service cost an additional 249,393 KRW and resulted in an increase of 0.008 QALYs per patient compared to no alarm service. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 31,174,125 KRW (26,843 USD) per QALY gained. The alarm service was cost-effective than no alarm service if the willingness to pay setting as 1GDP per capita (29,288 USD) per QALY gained. This study shows that less-intensive fracture liaison services, such as an alarm service, are cost-effective for patients aged 50 years and older with osteoporotic fractures in Korea. An intensive model, including enhanced identification and education, could further prevent the risk of refracture and improve cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of Denosumab for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in Malaysia

From the perspective of Malaysian health care providers, denosumab was cost-effective in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, with an optimal outcome starting at age 60 years. Our results provide important insights into the value for money of anti-osteoporotic agents that can serve as a reference for other countries with comparable epidemiological data.

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of denosumab with alendronate and no treatment in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis among the Malaysian population.

METHODS

A well-validated Markov model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab in a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic women between 50 and 80 years old who had no history of fractures. A 10-year time horizon from the perspective of Malaysian health care providers was used in this analysis. The model parameters, including transition probabilities and costs, were based on Malaysian sources. Treatment efficacy data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. The study outcomes were presented as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of the results. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at MYR 21,438 (USD 5175) per QALY.

RESULTS

Denosumab was found to be a cost-effective option for postmenopausal osteoporotic women aged 60 and older. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab versus alendronate ranged from MYR 16,955 (USD 4093) per QALY at age 60 to MYR 4380 (USD 1057) per QALY at age 80. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab improved monotonically with increasing age. Denosumab was 72.8-92.7% likely to be cost-effective at the cost-effectiveness threshold. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were robust across all parameter variations, with the annual cost of denosumab being the most sensitive.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the Malaysian health care provider, denosumab appears to be a cost-effective treatment choice for postmenopausal osteoporotic women over 60 years of age.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab for osteoporosis: a systematic review

This paper systematically reviewed and assessed all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis. Denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

There are many pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for osteoporosis. However, the corresponding reviews are outdated or incomplete and need to be updated and refined. This article aims to systematically review and evaluate all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies of denosumab for osteoporosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed utilizing PubMed, EMBASE(Ovid), Proquest(EconLit), Chongqing VIP, WanFang Database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify full-text articles published before September 2021. The quality of full-text articles was evaluated by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards(CHEERS) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases International Osteoporosis Foundation guideline(ESCEO-IOF).

RESULTS

In total, 21 full-text articles were eligible for inclusion. Denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporosis was not dominant compared to zoledronate and teriparatide. However, denosumab was dominant compared with strontium ranelate, raloxifene, and ibandronate in patients over 65 years. The probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective or dominant were more than 85% compared with no treatment and risedronate in patients aged over 70 years. Compared to alendronate, the highest rate of denosumab dominance occurred in patients aged 65 to 75 years, at about 65%. Most of the articles had higher CHEERS scores than ESCEO-IOF scores (converted into percentages).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis was influenced by multiple factors. Generally, denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the transparency, generalization, and quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression surgery for cervical degenerative disk disease: a systematic review of economic evaluations

PURPOSE

No clear consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is most cost-effective for treating cervical degenerative disk disease (CDDD). One of the most common treatment options is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) was developed in an effort to reduce the incidence of clinical adjacent segment pathology and associated additional surgeries by preserving motion. This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression techniques used to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy caused by CDDD.

METHODS

The search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit, NHS-EED and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if healthcare costs and utility or effectivity measurements were mentioned.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included out of the 1327 identified studies. In 9 of the 13 studies directly comparing ACDA and ACDF, ACDA was the most cost-effective technique, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio ranging from $2.900/QALY to $98.475/QALY. There was great heterogeneity between the costs of due to different in- and exclusion criteria of costs and charges, cost perspective, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was moderate.

CONCLUSION

The majority of studies report ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in comparison with ACDF. The lack of uniform literature impedes any solid conclusions to be drawn. There is a need for high-quality cost-effectiveness research and uniformity in the conduct, design and reporting of economic evaluations concerning the treatment of CDDD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020207553 (04.10.2020).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fracture Liaison Services Compared with Standard of Care in the Secondary Prevention of Fragility Fractures in Spain

Purpose

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) compared with standard care for the secondary prevention of fragility fractures in Spain.

Methods

Patients with osteoporosis and an initial fragility fracture who were candidates to initiate osteoporosis treatment (mean age 65 years, 90.7% female) were included in the model. Disease progression was simulated with a Markov model through seven health states (with and without osteoporosis treatment, subsequent hip, vertebral, forearm and humerus fracture, and death). A time horizon of 10 years and a 6-month duration per cycle was set. Clinical, economic, and quality of life parameters were estimated from the literature and Spanish clinical practice. Resource use and treatment patterns were validated by an expert panel. The Spanish National Health System (SNS) perspective was adopted, taking direct costs (€; 2020) into account. Effectiveness was measured in life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years gained (QALYs). A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and outcomes. The uncertainty of the parameters was assessed using deterministic, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (1000 iterations).

Results

Setting up a FLS for the secondary prevention of fragility fractures in Spain would provide better osteoporosis treatment initiation and persistence. This would reduce subsequent fragility fractures, disutilities and deaths. FLS would have greater clinical benefits (0.008 and 0.082 LYG and QALY gained per patient, respectively) and higher costs (€563.69 per patient) compared with standard care, leading to an incremental cost-utility ratio of €6855.23 per QALY gained over the 10 years horizon. The sensitivity analyses showed limited dispersion of the base case results, corroborating their robustness.

Conclusion

From the SNS perspective and considering Spanish willingness-to-pay thresholds, the introduction of FLS for the secondary prevention of fragility fractures would be a cost-effective strategy.

Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments

Osteoporosis care has evolved markedly over the last 50 years, such that there are now an established clinical definition, validated methods of fracture risk assessment and a range of effective pharmacological agents. Currently, bone-forming (anabolic) agents, in many countries, are used in those patients who have continued to lose bone mineral density (BMD), patients with multiple subsequent fractures or those who have fractured despite treatment with antiresorptive agents. However, head-to-head data suggest that anabolic agents have greater rapidity and efficacy for fracture risk reduction than do antiresorptive therapies. The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) convened an expert working group to discuss the tools available to identify patients at high risk of fracture, review the evidence for the use of anabolic agents as the initial intervention in patients at highest risk of fracture and consider the sequence of therapy following their use. This position paper sets out the findings of the group and the consequent recommendations. The key conclusion is that the current evidence base supports an "anabolic first" approach in patients found to be at very high risk of fracture, followed by maintenance therapy using an antiresorptive agent, and with the subsequent need for antiosteoporosis therapy addressed over a lifetime horizon.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Denosumab/Zoledronic Acid Compared With Zoledronic Acid Monotherapy for Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women in China

Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

Methods: We updated and utilized a previously validated Markov microsimulation model to obtain the cost-effectiveness of two strategies for treating postmenopausal osteoporotic women. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid (i.e., biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years) with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective. Our study’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to three times the value of China’s per capita GDP in 2020 ($31,512).

Results: The ICERs of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid monotherapy were $59,389/QALY, $23,821/QALY, $22,710/QALY, and $14,027/QALY at age 65, 70, 75, and 80 years, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the most impactful parameter was the persistence rate of the medications. If the persistence rate of denosumab or zoledronic acid was increased by 10%, sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid would be cost-effective at age 65. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential denosumab/zoledronic being cost-effective compared to zoledronic acid monotherapy were approximately 29.3%, 68.7%, 86.1%, and 99.4% for ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 years, respectively, at the WTP threshold of $31,512/QALY.

Conclusion: Among Chinese postmenopausal osteoporosis women over 70 years old, sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid was cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy at the pre-determined WTP threshold.

Economic evaluations in fracture research an introduction with examples of foot fractures

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of foot fractures is increasing. These types of fractures represent the most expensive group of diagnoses in the emergency department. Next to this, the need for economic evaluation studies is growing fast. The aim of this article is to provide healthcare professionals with an introduction to economic evaluation studies in the field of foot fractures.

TYPES OF ECONOMIC EVALUATION STUDIES

Four types of economic evaluation studies exist: cost-minimization analysis (CMA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), and cost-utility analysis (CUA). An economic evaluation study can be either trial- or model-based.

COST ASSESSMENT

When assessing costs in an economic evaluation study, three steps need to be made: identification of costs, measurement of costs, and valuation of costs.

PERSPECTIVE OF ANALYSIS

Two main perspectives exist in economic evaluation studies. When using a healthcare perspective, only the potential costs and benefits of an intervention for the healthcare sector are included. The societal perspective includes all potential costs, including societal costs.

SYNTHESIS OF COSTS AND EFFECTS AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

The level of cost-effectiveness can be objectively expressed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). This measure can be plotted in a cost-effectiveness plane and can be compared with existing regional ceiling ratios.

CONCLUSION

Although this article is not a guideline for economic evaluations, we do want to present five tips to consider when performing an economic evaluation. Firstly, when measuring resource use, consult the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurements (DIRUM) to find an appropriate instrument. Secondly, when measuring utility values, use the EuroQol questionnaire if possible. Thirdly, when setting up an economic evaluation study, consult the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) database for the appropriate pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Fourthly, consult international guidelines to decide which study design is most appropriate. Finally, when performing an economic evaluation, consult a heath technology assessment (HTA) specialist from the start to ensure methodological quality.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Teriparatide/Zoledronic Acid Compared With Zoledronic Acid Monotherapy for Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women in China

Objective

We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid relative to zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

Methods

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was updated to examine the cost-effectiveness of daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years (sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid), compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid vs. zoledronic acid monotherapy was $173,223/QALY at age 65 years, which was much higher than the pre-determined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $ 31,512/QALY, and the results were similar at other ages. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the two most impactful parameters were the cost of teriparatide and the residual effects of the medications included in this study. Sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid became cost-effective at age 80 with the cost of teriparatide reduced by 50%. Without the residual effect, the ICER increased to $257,982/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses shown that the probabilities of zoledronic acid monotherapy being cost-effective were 100% at a WTP of $31,512/QALY.

Conclusions

Among Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid was not cost-effective unless the cost of teriparatide was reduced by 50% only for the participants over 80 years.

Elaborate the Mechanism of Ancient Classic Prescriptions (Erzhi Formula) in Reversing GIOP by Network Pharmacology Coupled with Zebrafish Verification

Osteoporosis is a degenerative disease that endangers human health. At present, chemical drugs used for osteoporosis have serious side effects. Therefore, it is valuable to search herbs with high safety and good curative effect in antiosteoporosis. Erzhi formula (EZF), an ancient classic compound, has been reported to have a beneficial effect in antiosteoporosis, but its mechanism is unclear. In this paper, the active compounds of EZF were found in Systems Pharmacology Database, and gene targets related to osteoporosis were obtained in GeneCards. The GO functional and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis were performed by Metascape. The network of “components-targets-signal pathway” was constructed by Cytoscape. Next, molecular docking between the active components and hub genes related to the PI3K-Akt signaling pathway was conducted by Autodock. In the verification experiment, the zebrafish induced by prednisolone (PNSL) was used to reproduce glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) model, and then the reversal effects of EZF were systematically evaluated according to the behavior, skull staining area, bone mineralization area (BMA), average optical density (AOD), and cumulative optical density (COD). Finally, it was shown that 24 components in EZF could regulate 39 common gene targets to exert antiosteoporosis effect. Besides, the main regulatory mechanisms of EZF were 4 signaling pathways: PI3K-Akt, JAK-STAT, AGE-RAGE, and cancer pathway. In PI3K-Akt signaling pathway, wedelolactone, dimethyl wedelolactone, specnuezhenide, ursolic acid, acacetin, beta-sitosterol, apigenin, and kaempferol can bind tightly with EGF, IL-2, and IL-4 genes. Compared with the model group, the moving distance, swimming speed, and cumulative swimming time of zebrafish in EZF group were significantly increased (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the BMA and COD of zebrafish were significantly improved after the intervention of EZF (P < 0.05). In summary, the 24 components of EZF exert their antiosteoporosis effects by regulating 39 related gene targets, among which the PI3K signaling pathway is crucial. EZF can promote bone formation and reversed GIOP through “multicomponent/multitarget/multipathway” and the medium dose of EZF may be the most suitable concentration for the treatment of GIOP in zebrafish model.

A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in Dutch patients with fractures visiting a Fracture Liaison Service

AIMS

This study compared the psychometric properties of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D to assess the interchangeability of both instruments in patients with a recent fracture presenting at a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from a prospective observational study in a Dutch FLS clinic were used. Over 3 years, subjects were interviewed at several time points using EQ-5D-5L and SF-36. Floor and ceiling effects were evaluated. Agreement was evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficients and visualized in Bland-Altman plots. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were applied to assess convergent validity. Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test as well as effect size (ES) were used to explore known-groups validity. Responsiveness was explored using standardized response mean (SRM) and ES. For each measurement property, hypotheses on direction and magnitude of effects were formulated.

RESULTS

A total of 499 patients were included. EQ-5D-5L had a considerable ceiling effect in comparison to SF-6D (21 vs. 1.2%). Moderate agreement between the (UK and Dutch) EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D was identified with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.625 and 0.654, respectively. Bland-Altman plots revealed proportional bias as the differences in utilities between two instruments were highly dependent on the health states. High correlation between instruments was found (UK: rho = 0.758; Dutch: rho = 0.763). EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities showed high correlation with physical component score but low correlation with mental component score of SF-36. Both instruments showed moderate discrimination (ES > 0.5) for subgroup by baseline fracture type, and moderate responsiveness (SRM > 0.5) in patients that sustained a subsequent fracture.

CONCLUSION

Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D appeared to be valid utility instruments in patients with fractures attending the FLS. However, they cannot be used interchangeably given only moderate agreement was identified, and differences in utilities and ceiling effect were revealed. Comparable construct validity and responsiveness were indicated, and neither instrument was found to be clearly superior.

Evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery: study protocol for a Delphi consensus

INTRODUCTION

Considering the rising global healthcare expenses, economic evaluations are more important than ever. Even though the number of studies regarding costs and cost-effectiveness is increasing, the quality of these studies remains relatively low. This is mainly caused by abundant heterogeneity in methods used for determining, calculating and reporting cost data, despite current general guidelines for the conduct of economic evaluations. Disease-specific recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in the field of spine surgery, as complement to existing general guidelines, will ameliorate overall research quality, comparability and interpretability and thus, the overall quality. We aim to provide expert-based recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in spine surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A modified Delphi study will be conducted to formulate expert-based recommendations. The following steps will be taken:(1) The conduct of a systematic review to identify relevant publications and identify relevant authors. Formation of an expert group and a Delphi-panel. (2) Drafting of statements based on articles included in the systematic literature review. Validation of drafted statements by the expert group. Step 2 can be repeated up to three times, statements can be discarded and adjusted in these rounds. Statements with more than 75% agreement will be accepted as consensus statements. (3) Validation of statements by the Delphi-panel. (4) Final recommendations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The underlying work is based on existing literature and published data and does not include participation of patients, and thus does not require ethical review approval. The final recommendations are intended for (clinical) researchers in the field of cost-effectiveness in spine surgery. The Delphi method ensures that the final output reflects the opinions of international participants and gives insight in the adherence level to the recommendations. The aim is to reach uniformity in design, conduct and reporting of these studies, as is currently lacking. This will provide a solid basis to determine cost-effectiveness of spine surgeries and consequently aid to limit the rising healthcare costs. The findings of this study and the final recommendations will be disseminated in conferences and seminars and will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Which injected antiosteoporotic medication is worth paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four injected antiosteoporotic medications including teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the four drugs above in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history of hip, vertebral, or wrist at various ages (65, 70, 75, and 80) of therapy initiation from the health care payer perspective.

RESULTS

Denosumab was dominant (ie, lower costs and greater quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) compared with other strategies at all ages studied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of zoledronate or ibandronate versus no treatment were $4,482.88/ QALYs or $11,378/QALYs, respectively, at age 65 years, and the results at other ages were similar. In contrast, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of teriparatide strategy compared with no treatment exceeded the pre-determined threshold of a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY regardless of the adoption of the patient assistance program at all ages studied, and a threshold analysis showed that teriparatide without patient assistance program became cost-effective when the annual drug cost is decreased to $1,644.87 (current cost: $8,764.65). The cost-effectiveness decision did not change in most of the one-way sensitivity analyses. A scenario analysis considering no offset effect of denosumab showed that zoledronate had the potential to become the optimal option relative to denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective compared with other strategies were 100% at a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Among postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China, denosumab therapy is cost-effective at all ages examined from the health care payer perspective, compared with teriparatide, zoledronate, or ibandronate. This study will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in China.

Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses: ICON study - Protocol of a quasi-experimental study to assess the (cost)-effectiveness of combining a decision aid with motivational interviewing for improving medication persistence in patients with a recent fracture being treated at the fracture liaison service

Background

Given the health and economic burden of fractures related to osteoporosis, suboptimal adherence to medication and the increasing importance of shared-decision making, the Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses (ICON) study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a multi-component adherence intervention (MCAI) for patients with an indication for treatment with anti–osteoporosis medication, following assessment at the Fracture Liaison Service after a recent fracture. The MCAI involves two consultations at the FLS. During the first consultation, a decision aid is will be used to involve patients in the decision of whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. During the follow-up visit, the nurse inquires about, and stimulates, medication adherence using motivational interviewing techniques.

Methods

A quasi-experimental trial to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness and feasibility of an MCAI, consisting of a decision aid (DA) at the first visit, combined with nurse-led adherence support using motivational interviewing during the follow-up visit, in comparison with care as usual, in improving adherence to oral anti-osteoporosis medication for patients with a recent fracture two Dutch FLS. Medication persistence, defined as the proportion of patients who are persistent at one year assuming a refill gap < 30 days, is the primary outcome. Medication adherence, decision quality, subsequent fractures and mortality are the secondary outcomes. A lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis using a model-based economic evaluation and a process evaluation will also be conducted. A sample size of 248 patients is required to show an improvement in the primary outcome with 20%. Study follow-up is at 12 months, with measurements at baseline, after four months, and at 12 months.

Discussion

We expect that the ICON-study will show that the MCAI is a (cost-)effective intervention for improving persistence with anti-osteoporosis medication and that it is feasible for implementation at the FLS.

Trial registration

This trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, part of the Dutch Cochrane Centre (Trial NL7236 (NTR7435)).

Version 1.0; 26-11-2020.

Development and validation of the risk engine for an Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis

The Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis (AusHEMO) has shown good face, internal and cross validities, and can be used to assist healthcare decision-making in Australia.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to document and validate the risk engine of the Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis (AusHEMO).

METHODS

AusHEMO is a state-transition microsimulation model. The fracture risks were simulated using fracture incidence rates from the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study. The AusHEMO was validated regarding its face, internal and cross validities. Goodness-of-fit analysis was conducted and Lin's coefficient of agreement and mean absolute difference with 95% limits of agreement were reported.

RESULTS

The development of AusHEMO followed general and osteoporosis-specific health economics guidelines. AusHEMO showed good face validity regarding the model's structure, evidence, problem formulation and results. In addition, the model has been proven good internal and cross validities in goodness-of-fit test. Lin's coefficient was 0.99, 1 and 0.94 for validation against the fracture incidence rates, Australian life expectancies and residual lifetime fracture risks, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the development of the risk engine of AusHEMO followed the best practice for osteoporosis disease modelling and the model has been shown to have good face, internal and cross validities. The AusHEMO can be confidently used to predict long-term fracture-related outcomes and health economic evaluations when costs data are included. Health policy-makers in Australia can use the AusHEMO to select which osteoporosis interventions such as medications and public health interventions represent good value for money.

Incremental costs of fragility fractures: a population-based matched -cohort study from Ontario, Canada

Using a matched cohort design, the 1-year excess cost of incident fragility fractures at any site was $26,341 per patient, with 43% of total excess costs attributed to hospitalization. The high economic burden of fractures in Ontario underscores the urgency of closing the secondary fracture prevention gap.

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective real-world observational study was conducted to document the incremental costs associated with fragility fractures in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Patients aged >65 years with an index fragility fracture occurring between January 2011 and March 2015 were identified from administrative databases and matched 1:1 to a cohort of similar patients without a fracture. Healthcare resource utilization data were extracted from healthcare records and associated costs were calculated on a per-patient level and for the province of Ontario. Costs were presented as 2017 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

The eligible cohort included 115,776 patients with a fragility fracture. Of these, 101,773 patients were successfully matched 1:1 to a non-fracture cohort. Overall, hip fractures (n = 31,613) were the most common, whereas femur fractures (n = 3002) were the least common type. Hospitalization and continuing care/home care/long-term care accounted for more than 60% of 1-year direct costs, whereas 5% was attributed to medication costs. First-year costs per patient in the fracture cohort were approximately threefold higher versus the non-fracture cohort (mean $37,362 versus $11,020, respectively). The incremental first-year direct healthcare costs of fragility fractures for the province of Ontario were calculated at $724 million per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Fragility fractures were associated with a threefold increase in overall mean healthcare costs per patient compared to patients without fractures. With an aging population, there is an urgent need for improved prevention strategies for patients at high-risk of fracture to decrease the economic burden of fragility fractures on the Canadian healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention for Medicare beneficiaries

Background

Secondary fracture prevention intervention such as fracture liaison services are effective for increasing osteoporosis treatment rates, but are not currently widely used in the United States. We evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention after osteoporotic fracture for Medicare beneficiaries.

Methods

An individual‐level state‐transition microsimulation model was developed to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention compared with usual care for U.S. Medicare patients aged 65 and older who experience a new osteoporotic fracture. Patients who initiated pharmacotherapy and remained adherent were assumed to be treated for 5 years. Outcome measures included subsequent fractures, average lifetime costs, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios in 2020 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. The model time horizon was lifetime, and analysis perspective was payer.

Results

Base‐case analysis results showed that the secondary fracture prevention intervention strategy was both more effective and less expensive than usual care—thus, it was cost‐saving. Model findings indicated that the intervention would reduce the number of expected fractures by approximately 5% over a 5‐year period, preventing approximately 30,000 fractures for 1 million patients. Secondary fracture prevention intervention resulted in an average cost savings of $418 and an increase in QALYs of 0.0299 per patient over the lifetime; for 1 million patients who receive the intervention instead of usual care, expected cost savings for Medicare would be $418 million dollars. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported base‐case findings of cost savings.

Conclusion

Secondary fracture prevention intervention for Medicare beneficiaries after a new osteoporotic fracture is very likely to both improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs compared with usual care. Expansion of its use for this population is strongly recommended.

A novel economic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-forming agents in the prevention of fractures in patients with osteoporosis

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.

Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The number of performed instrumented lumbar spine surgeries and associated health-care-related costs has increased over the last decades, and will increase further in the future. With the consistent growth of health-care-related costs, cost-effectiveness of surgical techniques is of major relevance. Common indications for instrumented lumbar spine surgery are spondylolisthesis and degenerative disease. A commonly used technique is the open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF). Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in the minimally invasive variation of this technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [MITLIF]). Currently available literature describes that MITLIF has comparable or even better clinical results compared to OTLIF. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF and OTLIF is important considering the growing health-care related costs, although no consensus has been reached regarding the most cost-effective technique. In this systematic review, previous literature concerning costs and cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was compared with MITLIF in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the current literature on cost-effectiveness of OTLIF compared MITLIF to in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

Clinical studies reporting costs or cost-effectiveness for either OTLIF or MITLIF in patients with spondylolisthesis, lumbar instability, or degenerative disease were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The following data items were evaluated: study design, study population, utility measurement tool, gained quality adjusted life years (QALYs), cost sources, health care and societal perspective costs, total costs, costs per QALY (cost-effectiveness) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit and Web of Science on studies reporting OTLIF or MITLIF, spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability or degenerative disease, and costs. Relevant studies were selected and reviewed independently by two authors. For comparison, all costs were converted to American dollars with the reference year 2018.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, a total of 892 studies were identified. Eventually, 32 studies were included. Nine studies compared OTLIF and MITLIF directly. All studies mentioned health care perspective costs. Seven studies mentioned societal perspective costs. Cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was mentioned in five studies, ranging from $47,303/QALY to $218,766/QALY. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF was mentioned in one study, $121,105/QALY. Meta-analysis of hospital perspective costs showed a significant overall effect in favor of MITLIF, with a mean difference of $2,650. There was great heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion factors, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. Overall quality of studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

OTLIF and MITLIF appear to be expensive interventions when using a threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results of this study and previous literature suggest that MITLIF is more cost-effective compared to OTLIF. Considering the increase in health care costs of instrumented spine surgery, cost-effectiveness could be one of the factors in surgical decision-making. Prospective randomized studies directly comparing cost-effectiveness of OTLIF and MITLIF from both hospital and societal perspectives are needed to obtain higher level of evidence.

Replication of Published Health Economic Obesity Models: Assessment of Facilitators, Hurdles and Reproduction Success

OBJECTIVES

This research aims to (1) replicate published health economic models, (2) compare reproduced results with original results, (3) identify facilitators and hurdles to model replicability and determine reproduction success, and (4) suggest model replication reporting standards to enhance model reproducibility, in the context of health economic obesity models.

METHODS

Four health economic obesity models simulating an adult UK population were identified, selected for replication, and evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Reproduction results were compared to original results, focusing on cost-effectiveness outcomes, and the resulting reproduction success was assessed by published criteria. Replication facilitators and hurdles were identified and transferred into related reporting standards.

RESULTS

All four case studies were state-transition models simulating costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Comparing original versus reproduction outcomes, the following deviation ranges were observed: costs - 3.9 to 16.1% (mean over all model simulations 3.78%), QALYs - 3.7 to 2.1% (mean - 0.11%), and average cost-utility ratios - 3.0 to 17.9% (mean 4.28%). Applying different published criteria, an overall reproduction success was observed for three of four models. Key replication facilitators were input data tables and model diagrams, while missing standard deviations and missing formulas for equations were considered as key hurdles.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the feasibility of rebuilding health economic obesity models, but minor to major assumptions were needed to fill reporting gaps. Model replications can help to assess the quality of health economic model documentation and can be used to validate current model reporting practices. Simple changes to actual CHEERS reporting criteria may solve identified replication hurdles.

Cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Italy

The use of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet, a convenient dosing regimen for bisphosphonate therapy, seems a cost-effective strategy compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis aged 60 years and over in Italy.

INTRODUCTION

To assess the cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate (ALN) 70 mg effervescent tablet compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Italy.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adjusted to the Italian healthcare setting to estimate the lifetime costs (expressed in €2019) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of buffered soluble ALN compared with generic ALN, denosumab, zoledronic acid and no treatment. Pooled efficacy data derived from the NICE network meta-analysis were used for bisphosphonate treatments. Two treatment duration scenarios were assessed: 1 year using persistence data derived from an Italian prospective observational study including 144 and 216 postmenopausal osteoporotic women on buffered soluble ALN and oral ALN, respectively, and 3 years. Analyses were conducted for women 60-80 years of age with a bone mineral density T-score ≤ - 3.0 or with existing vertebral fractures.

RESULTS

In all simulated populations, buffered soluble ALN was dominant (more QALYs, lower costs) compared to denosumab. The cost per QALY gained of buffered soluble ALN compared to generic ALN and no treatment always falls below €20,000 per QALY gained. In the 1-year treatment scenario, zoledronic acid was associated with more QALY than buffered soluble ALN but the cost per QALY gained of zoledronic acid compared with buffered soluble ALN was always higher than €70,000, while buffered soluble ALN was dominant in the 3-year treatment scenario.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that buffered soluble ALN represents a cost-effective strategy compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis women in Italy aged 60 years and over.

An Updated Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Drugs for Osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles.

RESULTS

The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvement was observed for most studies, which could potentially be explained by the fact that most studies were published prior to the osteoporosis-specific guideline. Greater adherence to guideline recommendations was expected for future studies. The quality of reporting was also suboptimal, especially with regard to treatment side effects, treatment effect after discontinuation, and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review provides an overview of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses. In comparison with a previous review, recent economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs were conducted in more countries and included more active drugs and sequential therapy as interventions/comparators. The updated economic evidence could help decision makers prioritize health interventions and the unmet/unreported quality issues indicated by the osteoporosis-specific guideline could be useful in improving the transparency, quality, and comparability of future economic evaluations in osteoporosis.

A novel effervescent formulation of oral weekly alendronate (70 mg) improves persistence compared to alendronate tablets in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

A novel effervescent buffered solution of 70 mg alendronate (ALN-EX) was developed to improve upper gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability over alendronate tablets (ALN-T). Whether a better GI tolerability can improve persistence remains to be determined.

AIM

This study evaluated persistence and reasons for discontinuation in patients treated with ALN-EX compared to a historical cohort on ALN-T.

METHODS

Post-menopausal women (PMW) from a standardized clinical database with BMD T-score < -2.5, or between -2 and -2.5 and at least one vertebral fracture, starting ALN-EX between July 2015 and June 2016 were included. A historical cohort comprised of randomly selected and age-matched PMW on ALN-T was used as a control. Persistence at 6 and 12 months and reasons for discontinuation (e.g. adverse events; AE) were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 144 PMW on ALN-EX and 216 PMW on ALN-T were analysed. Persistence at 6 and 12 months was 91% and 81% in the ALN-EX group vs. 75% and 69% in the ALN-T group, this difference attaining statistical significance at both 6- (p < 0.001) and 12 months (p = 0.009). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving ALN-T discontinued treatment due to GI AEs (4% ALN-EX vs. 11% ALN-T; p = 0.027), or patient's decision to discontinue (6% ALN-EX vs. 13% ALN-T; p = 0.016). The adjusted odds ratio of persisting on ALN-EX treatment at 12 months was 2.02 (95% CI: 1.21-3.41, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that ALN-EX can provide greater persistence and improved tolerability compared to ALN-T, allowing it to be a viable alternative option in the management of osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness of FRAX®-based intervention thresholds for management of osteoporosis in Singaporean women

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FRAX® intervention thresholds (ITs) in Singaporean women > 50 years of age showed that generic alendronate was cost-effective at age-dependent major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) IT from the ages of 65 years for both full and real-world adherence whilst hip fracture (HF) ITs were cost-effective from the ages of 60 and 65 years. Alendronate was cost-effective irrespective of age only at fixed MOF IT of 14% and HF IT of 3.5%.

INTRODUCTION

FRAX®-based intervention thresholds (ITs) were recently identified for osteoporosis management in Singapore. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ITs in Singaporean women over the age of 50 years.

METHODS

A validated Markov microsimulation model was used to estimate the lifetime healthcare costs (SGD2019) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of generic alendronate compared with no treatment. Cost-effectiveness of age-dependent FRAX® major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) ITs was explored. In addition, ITs that would lead to cost-effectiveness were computed. Fracture incidence and cost data were obtained from the Ministry of Health and a previously published Singaporean study. A cost-effectiveness threshold of SGD 62,500/QALY gained was used, based conservatively on 0.7 times the Singapore GDP per capita.

RESULTS

Generic alendronate was shown to be cost-effective at MOF ITs from the ages of 65 years, while HF ITs were cost-effective from the ages of 60 and 65 years, assuming full and real-world adherence, respectively. A 14% MOF and a 3.5% HF ITs were required for alendronate to be cost-effective above 50 years.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the treatment of Singaporean women with alendronate is cost-effective at age-dependant FRAX® intervention thresholds at 65 years and older. Furthermore, identifying women at any age above 50 years with a 10-year risk of MOF or HF of 14% or 3.5% would lead to efficient use of resources. Cost-effective access to therapy for patients at high fracture probability based on FRAX® could contribute to reduce the growing burden of osteoporotic fractures in Singapore.

Cost-effectiveness of sequential daily teriparatide/weekly alendronate compared with alendronate monotherapy for older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in Japan

Using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling older osteoporotic Japanese women with prior vertebral fracture over a lifetime horizon, we found that daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years.

PURPOSE

Teriparatide has proven efficacy in reducing osteoporotic fractures, but with substantial cost. We examined the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/alendronate (i.e., daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years) compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior clinical or morphometric vertebral fracture in Japan.

METHODS

Using a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) from the perspective of a single payer responsible for both public healthcare and long-term care. We assumed a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5million (or $47,500) per QALY in the base case. We modeled the cost of biosimilar teriparatide, which has been available since November 2019 in Japan, assuming the efficacy was the same as that of the brand version.

RESULTS

In the base case, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would become cost-effective with 85%, 50%, and 15% price discounts to teriparatide at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively, compared to the current biosimilar cost. Otherwise, results were especially sensitive to changes that affected efficacy of teriparatide or alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were 0%, 1%, and 37% at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk osteoporotic women in Japan, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy, even with the availability of biosimilar teriparatide.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate for older osteoporotic women in Japan

Among hypothetical cohorts of older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two treatment strategies using a simulation model. Annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years was cost-saving compared with biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 3 years.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis constitutes a major medical and health economic burden to society worldwide. Injectable treatments for osteoporosis require less frequent administration than oral treatments and therefore have higher persistence and adherence with treatment, which could explain better efficacy for fracture prevention. Although annual intravenous zoledronic acid and biannual subcutaneous denosumab are available, it remains unclear which treatment strategy represents a better value from a health economic perspective. Accordingly, we examined the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid for 3 years compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate (i.e., denosumab for 3 years followed by oral weekly alendronate for 3 years, making the total treatment duration 6 years) among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan at ages 65, 70, 75, or 80 years.

METHODS

Using a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) from the public healthcare and long-term care payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5 million (or $47,500) per QALY.

RESULTS

In the base case, zoledronic acid was cost-saving (i.e., more effective and less expensive) compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to changes in the efficacy of zoledronic acid or the cumulative persistence rate with zoledronic acid or denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective were 98-100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Among older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, zoledronic acid was cost-saving compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate.