Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar;32(3):585-594.
doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05780-8. Epub 2021 Jan 6.

Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden

E Söreskog  1 , I Lindberg  2 , J A Kanis  3   4 , K E Åkesson  5 , D Willems  6 , M Lorentzon  4   7   8 , O Ström  2   9 , P Berling  10 , F Borgström  2   9
Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden

E Söreskog et al. Osteoporos Int. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Imminent fracture risk; Markov-microsimulation model; Osteoporosis; Recent fracture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

ES, IL, and FB are employees of Quantify Research which was contracted and paid by UCB Pharma to conduct the study. The authors did not receive direct payment as a result of this work outside of their normal salary payments. PB and DW are employees of UCB Pharma. JAK reports grants from Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Radius Health; consulting fees from Theramex. JAK is the architect of FRAX® but has no financial interest. KEA reports lecture and advisory fees outside this work from Amgen, Astellas, Chugai, Renapharma, and UCB Pharma. ML received lecture fees outside this work from Amgen, Astellas, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Model structure. ‘Death’ is a transition state from any of the other states (‘At risk of fracture’, ‘Vertebral fracture’, ‘Hip fracture’, and ‘Non-hip, non-vertebral fracture’)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Trajectory of fracture risk after first fracture with sequential and non-sequential treatment and without treatment
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for pairwise comparisons of romosozumab-to-alendronate vs. alendronate alone. Note: WTP levels of €60,000 and €80,000 are indicated by the grey vertical lines
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA) Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8:136. doi: 10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Svedbom A, Hernlund E, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA. Osteoporosis in the European Union: a compendium of country-specific reports. Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8:137. doi: 10.1007/s11657-013-0137-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kanis JA, Oden A, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Wahl DA, Cooper C, Epidemiology, IOFWGo, and Quality of, L A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(9):2239–2256. doi: 10.1007/s00198-012-1964-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Sembo I, Redlund-Johnell I, Dawson A, De Laet C, Jonsson B. Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmo. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11(8):669–674. doi: 10.1007/s001980070064. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, Kroger H, McCloskey EV, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone. 2004;35(2):375–382. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2004.03.024. - DOI - PubMed