No abstract

Summary Romosozumab is a novel bone-building drug that reduces fracture risk. This health economic analysis indicates that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture. Purpose To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate (“romosozumab-to-alendronate”) compared with alendronate alone in patients with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden. Methods A microsimulation model with a Markov structure was used to simulate fractures, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for women treated with romosozumab-to-alendronate or alendronate alone. Patients aged 74 years with a recent major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) were followed from the start of treatment until the age of 100 years or death. Treatment with romosozumab for 12 months was followed by alendronate for up to 48 months or alendronate alone with a maximum treatment duration of 60 months. The analysis had a societal perspective. Efficacy of romosozumab and alendronate were derived from phase III randomized controlled trials. Resource use and unit costs were collected from the literature. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with QALYs as effectiveness measures. Results The base case analysis showed that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate treatment was associated with 0.089 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €3002 compared to alendronate alone, resulting in an ICER of €33,732. At a Swedish reference willingness-to-pay per QALY of €60,000, romosozumab-to-alendronate had a 97.9% probability of being cost-effective against alendronate alone. The results were most sensitive to time horizon, persistence assumptions, patient age, and treatment efficacy. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00198-020-05780-8.

Community-based screening and treatment of women age 70-85 years at high fracture risk reduced fractures; moreover, the screening programme was cost-saving. The results support a case for a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK.Purpose-The SCOOP (screening for prevention of fractures in older women) randomised controlled trial investigated whether community-based screening could reduce fractures in women age 70-85 years. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting compared with usual management, based on the SCOOP study.

Introduction: The impact of additional risk factors on major cardiovascular event (MACE) rates in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischaemic stroke (IS) treated with statins is not well defined. Methods: In this retrospective populationbased cohort study, patients with a history of MI or IS treated with moderate-or high-intensity statins were identified using Swedish national register data. Patients were incident (index event between July 2006 and December 2014 and followed from diagnosis) or prevalent (MI or IS before July 2006 and followed thereafter). Four subgroups were defined on the basis of additional risk factors associated with increased cardiovascular risk: diabetes mellitus with target organ damage; chronic kidney disease stages 3-4; index event within 2 years after prior MI or IS; and polyvascular disease. First and total MACE rates (i.e. MI, IS, or cardiovascular death) were calculated, and first MACE 10-year risks (prevalent cohort only) were predicted. Results: Numerically, MACE rates in subgroups were 1.5-3 times higher than in overall populations, and were highest in the 2 years after the index event. First MACE rates in the additional risk factor subgroups were 17.2-33.5 per 100 person-years for the incident cohorts and 9.9-13.2 per 100 person-years for the prevalent cohorts. Total MACE rates per 100 person-years were 20.1-39.8 per 100 person-years and 12.4-17.6 per 100 person-years, respectively. Conclusion: Despite previous use of moderateor high-intensity statins, patients with a history of MI or IS, and additional risk factors remain at very high cardiovascular risk.

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.