A systematic review of cost‑effectiveness analyses of sequential treatment for osteoporosis
Authors' conclusion
The cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment for osteoporosis is influenced by multiple factors.
Study context
- Population
- Full-text pharmacoeconomic studies of sequential treatment for osteoporosis, published before June 17, 2022 (PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang)10 articles
- Comparison
- Sequential treatment vs bisphosphonate monotherapy, and between sequential treatments
- Outcome
- Cost-effectiveness
Methodological detailsquality assessed with CHEERS 2022 and ESCEO-IOF
- Quality assessed with CHEERS 2022 and ESCEO-IOF
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Sequential treatment vs bisphosphonate monotherapy: sequential treatment cost-effective or dominant in more than 75% of studies, except sequential treatment involving teriparatide
- Sequential treatments with abaloparatide or romosozumab cost-effective or dominant vs sequential treatment involving teriparatide
Further pooled results
Key drivers of cost-effectiveness
- Drug cost, medication persistence and adherence, drug effect on fracture risk, offset effect, time horizon, and baseline fracture risk
Study quality
- Most studies high quality in CHEERS (2022) and ESCEO-IOF
Original publication
A systematic review of cost‑effectiveness analyses of sequential treatment for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. Published 17 December 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →