ArticlePloS one2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of romosozumab for severe postmenopausal osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture in Mexico.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sclerostin in Vascular Calcification: Hypoxia-Driven Regulation and Therapeutic Modulation by Natural Products.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- Longitudinal osteoporosis therapy: treat-to-target and sequential strategies-a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Review
- The Conundrum of Medical Fracture Prevention in Chronic Kidney Disease-Summary of the Evidence and Pragmatic Clinical Guidance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Sclerostin's role in bone-muscle crosstalk and osteoporosis pathogenesis.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to denosumab, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis at very high risk of fractures in Mexican women.
methodsA Markov model was used to assess the relative cost effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab versus 2 years of teriparatide, both sequenced to denosumab for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Outcomes for a cohort of women with a mean age of 74 years, a T-score ≤-2.5 and a previous fragility fracture were simulated over a lifetime horizon. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Mexican healthcare system and used a discount rate of 5% per annum. To inform relative fracture incidence, the bone mineral density (BMD) advantage of romosozumab over teriparatide was translated into relative risks of fracture, using relationships provided by a meta-regression of osteoporosis therapy trials. Outcomes were assessed in terms of lifetime costs (2023 Mexican pesos), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life-years gained (LYs).
resultsBase case results showed that, compared with teriparatide/ denosumab, romosozumab/ denosumab reduced costs by $51,363 MXN per patient and yielded 0.03 additional QALYs and 0.01 LYs. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that results are robust to uncertainty in model assumptions and inputs.
conclusionsResults show that romosozumab/ denosumab produces greater health benefits at a lower total cost than teriparatide/ denosumab.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.