Background: Osteoporosis is a progressive skeletal disease associated with an increased risk of bone fracture. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for osteoporotic fracture prevention compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene) in a cohort of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Methods: A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of denosumab versus comparators. The model had a cycle length of 6 months and was run from the age of 68 years to individual patients' lifetime or the age of 100 years. The health states considered in the model were well, hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, other osteoporotic fracture, post-hip fracture, post-vertebral fracture, and death. Recent local data were used as inputs for the model parameters. A discount rate of 4.5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. Results: From the perspective of the healthcare system, denosumab was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to all comparators, considering one unit of Korea's gross domestic product per capita, USA dollar (USD) 34,870. Denosumab was cost-saving compared to ibandronate (oral) and raloxifene. Compared to alendronate, denosumab was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 767.10 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER of denosumab vs. ibandronate IV, risedronate, and zoledronate was USD 685.63, USD 1,469.71, USD 4,668.53 per QALY, respectively. Conclusions The findings of this analysis suggest that denosumab is a cost-effective therapeutic option for preventing fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in South Korea.

Objective: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent inflammatory skin disease. Both tralokinumab and dupilumab have been recommended in the European Guideline for the treatment of adult patients with severe AD. In Korea, dupilumab has been approved for patients with moderate to severe AD, and reimbursed for those with severe AD. Since there is no clinical trial directly comparing tralokinumab and dupilumab, we conducted indirect comparison to assess the clinical usefulness in patients with AD. Methods: We selected clinical trials for indirect comparison through a systematic literature review. Individual patient data were available for the tralokinumab clinical trial, and aggregated data were available for the dupilumab clinical trial. Therefore, we employed the Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) method. The treatment efficacy was assessed based on whether patients achieved a 75% reduction on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) after drug administration. Results: The difference in the proportion of patients achieving EASI 75 between tralokinumab and dupilumab was 4.7% (95% CI: −7.9 to 17.3). Considering the non-inferiority margin for the EASI 75 achievement rate is −10%, tralokinumab is deemed non-inferior to dupilumab as the lower bound of the CI for the difference in the EASI 75 achievement rate between tralokinumab and dupilumab was within −10%. Conclusion We conducted a MAIC analysis comparing tralokinumab and dupilumab based on EASI 75 achievement. The findings of this study show that tralokinumab is non-inferior to dupilumab and can be implemented in Korean clinical settings with a therapeutic position comparable to dupilumab.