Abstract:Background: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture. Data sources: For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018. Review methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results: Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories. Limitations: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients. Conclusions: Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of drugs for osteoporosis treatment in elderly Japanese women at high risk of fragility fractures: comparison of denosumab and weekly alendronate

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

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between Denosumab and Alendronate in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis: a Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Denosumab in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategy for postmenopausal Japanese women

Real-world cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Taiwan

Comparative effectiveness of denosumab vs alendronate among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

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

Cost-effectiveness of treatment of women aged 70 years and older with both osteopenia and microstructural deterioration

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Effectiveness of denosumab for fracture prevention in real-world postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study

Cost-effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Interventions to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia

Effect of denosumab on the incidence of fractures and mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis: A retrospective cohort study

Comparison of the effects of denosumab with either active vitamin D or native vitamin D on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal osteoporosis

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

Alendronate Versus Raloxifene for Postmenopausal Women: A Meta-Analysis of Seven Head-to-Head Randomized Controlled Trials.

Antiresorptive Drugs and the Risk of Femoral Shaft Fracture in Men and Women With Osteoporosis: A Cohort Study Using the National Database of Health Insurance Claims of Japan

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the denosumab biosimilar QL1206 in postmenopausal Chinese women with osteoporosis and high fracture risk

Comparison of the Efficacy of Zoledronate and Denosumab in Patients with Acute Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of denosumab on osteoporosis in three cases with anorexia nervosa and a review of the literature

Denosumab for osteoporosis in older adults in long‐term care: A randomized trial