Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36738425›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2023

Cost Effectiveness Analyses of Interventions for Osteoporosis in Men: A Systematic Literature Review.

Nannan Li, Charlotte Beaudart, Jane A Cauley, Steven W Ing, Nancy E Lane, Jean-Yves Reginster, Stuart Silverman, Andrea J Singer, Mickaël Hiligsmann

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clinical practice guideline for management of osteoporosis and fracture prevention in Canada: 2023 update.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Application and prospects of nanomaterials in osteoporosis treatment.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. From bisphosphonates to advanced therapies: a critical review of osteoporosis treatment strategies.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Nannan LiDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Charlotte BeaudartDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jane A CauleyDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Steven W IngDivision of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Nancy E LaneDepartment of Medicine, University of California at Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Jean-Yves ReginsterWHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium.
Stuart SilvermanCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Andrea J SingerDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Mickaël HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. m.hiligsmann@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4274-9258
Maastricht University · NLUniversity of Liège · BECedars-Sinai Medical Center · USGeorgetown University · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative for identifying and managing osteoporosis in men have increased substantially. With the approval of agents to treat men with osteoporosis, more economic evaluations have been conducted to assess the potential economic benefits of these interventions. Despite this concern, there is no specific overview of cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of osteoporosis in men.

objectivesThis study aims (1) to systematically review economic evaluations of interventions for osteoporosis in men; (2) to critically appraise the quality of included studies and the source of model input data; and (3) to investigate the comparability of results for studies including both men and women.

methodsA literature search mainly using MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases was undertaken to identify original articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2022. Studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis in men were included. The Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases and the International Osteoporosis Foundation osteoporosis-specific guideline was used to assess the quality of design, conduct, and reporting of included studies.

resultsOf 2973 articles identified, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, classified into economic evaluations of active drugs (n = 8) or nutritional supplements (n = 4), intervention thresholds (n = 5), screening strategies (n = 6), and post-fracture care programs (n = 2). Most studies were conducted in European countries (n = 15), followed by North America (n = 9). Bisphosphonates (namely alendronate) and nutritional supplements were shown to be generally cost effective compared with no treatment in men over 60 years of age with osteoporosis or prior fractures. Two other studies suggested that denosumab was cost effective in men aged 75 years and older with osteoporosis compared with bisphosphates and teriparatide. Intervention thresholds at which bisphosphonates were found to be cost effective varied among studies with a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that ranged from 8.9 to 34.2% for different age categories. A few studies suggested cost effectiveness of screening strategies and post-fracture care programs in men. Similar findings regarding the cost effectiveness of drugs and intervention thresholds in women and men were captured, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men. The quality of the studies included had an average score of 18.8 out of 25 (range 13-23.5). Hip fracture incidence and mortality risk were mainly derived from studies in men, while fracture cost, treatment efficacy, and disutility were commonly derived from studies in women or studies combining both sexes.

conclusionsAnti-osteoporosis drugs and nutritional supplements are generally cost effective in men with osteoporosis. Screening strategies and post-fracture care programs also showed economic benefits for men. Cost-effectiveness and intervention thresholds were generally similar in studies conducted in both men and women, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsOsteoporosisOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisDiphosphonatesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBone Density Conservation AgentsDiphosphonates

Identifiers

PMID36738425
PMCPMC10020287
OpenAlexW4319215975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.