Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture in Canada

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

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide-to-alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate for osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide followed by alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture, from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab is reimbursed in Belgium since December 2021.

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and to teriparatide-to-alendronate over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between five different health states every 6 months based on fracture risks or death. The model was populated with Belgium-specific epidemiological and cost data, where available. The fracture risk reduction of romosozumab treatment was collated from the ARCH study, and from a published network meta-analysis. Costs were included from a healthcare perspective (NIHDI). Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), reported in Euro (€) 2022. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed.

RESULTS

Romosozumab-to-alendronate was associated with 0.12 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €2314 compared to alendronate monotherapy, resulting in an ICER of €19,978. Compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate, romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be dominant, with higher QALYs and lower costs. The base-case results were robust to uncertainty in the input parameters when conducting the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide followed by alendronate for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

Clinical Utility of Romosozumab in the Management of Osteoporosis: Focus on Patient Selection and Perspectives

As one of the most potent osteoanabolic agents with a unique mechanism of action, romosozumab has high efficacy for osteoporosis treatment. It is a monoclonal antibody against sclerostin, a natural inhibitor of the Wnt signaling pathway, and by inhibiting sclerostin, activation of Wnt signaling occurs with a cascade of changes ultimately leading to bone mineral density (BMD) gains. Romosozumab stimulates bone modeling and has a dual effect of activating bone formation while inhibiting bone resorption. With this unique mechanism of action, treatment with romosozumab leads to a rapid and significant gain in BMD; these gains are higher than seen with bisphosphonates, denosumab, or parathyroid hormone (PTH) analogs. The FRAME and ARCH studies represent two pivotal trials demonstrating the efficacy of romosozumab in treating osteoporosis. Treatment with romosozumab should be followed by an antiresorptive agent, as this approach has demonstrated maintenance of or greater increases in BMD and reduced fracture risk even after finishing romosozumab treatment. As an osteoanabolic agent, romosozumab has shown superiority to alendronate in reducing fracture risk, increasing bone density, and potentially more rapid fracture risk reduction. Recent data have suggested that romosozumab prior to antiresorptive therapy may be the ideal treatment sequence, especially in high-risk patients and patients at imminent risk of fracture. Carrying a black box warning, romosozumab should be avoided in patients who have had myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year. Further studies are needed to clarify the increased cardiovascular risk attributed to this drug. Romosozumab has expanded our osteoporosis armamentarium and has enabled novel approaches, including "treat to target." Future studies are needed to evaluate the optimal use sequence and to assess its safety, especially in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.