Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States

Recommendations for the optimal use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis

Bone forming agents, also known as anabolic therapies, are essential in managing osteoporosis, particularly for patients at very high-risk of fractures. Identifying candidates who will benefit the most from these treatments is crucial. For example, this group might include individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple vertebral fractures, a recent fragility fracture or those unresponsive to antiresorptive treatments. Definitions of patients with a very high fracture risk vary across nations, are often based on fracture history, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or fracture risk calculated by FRAX® or other algorithms. However, for very high-risk patients, anabolic agents such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are commonly recommended as first-line therapies due to their ability to stimulate new bone formation and improve bone microarchitecture, offering significant benefits in rapid fracture reduction over antiresorptive therapies. The cost-effectiveness of these agents is a critical consideration for decision-makers. Despite their higher costs, their effectiveness in significantly reducing fracture risk and improving quality of life can justify the investment, especially when long-term savings from reduced fracture rates and associated healthcare costs are considered. Additionally, after completing a course of anabolic therapy, transitioning to antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab is crucial to maintain the gains in bone density and minimize subsequent fracture risks. This sequential treatment approach ensures sustained protection and optimal resource utilization. In summary, the effective use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis requires a comprehensive strategy that includes accurate patient identification, consideration of cost-effectiveness, and implementation of appropriate sequential treatments, ultimately maximizing patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide in US men and women at very high risk of fractures

BACKGROUND

Osteoporotic-related fractures represent an increasing burden to patients, health care systems and society.

AIMS

This study estimated cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) followed by alendronate (ALN) compared to relevant alternative strategies in US men and women aged 50 to 80 years at very high fracture risk (bone mineral density T-score ≤  - 2.5 and a recent fracture).

METHODS

A lifetime Markov-based microsimulation model was used to estimate healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Comparators were sequential treatment with unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Analyses were conducted based on initial fracture site (hip, vertebral, or any fracture) and treatment efficacy data (derived from clinical trials or a recent network meta-analysis).

RESULTS

From all analyses completed, sequential ABL/ALN demonstrated more QALYs for lower healthcare costs versus unbranded TPTD/ALN. No treatment was dominated (higher costs for less QALYs) versus ALN monotherapy. Sequential ABL/ALN resulted in favorable cost-effectiveness (at US threshold of $150,000/QALY) versus generic ALN monotherapy in men aged ≥ 50 years with any fracture type, women aged ≥ 65 years with any fracture type, and women aged ≥ 55 years having a hip or vertebral fracture.

DISCUSSION

Similar cost-effectiveness of sequential ABL/ALN versus unbranded TPTD/ALN, ALN monotherapy, and no treatment was observed in both US men and women at very high fracture risk, with a moderate improvement in cost-effectiveness in men versus women and in patients with a hip or vertebral fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy with ABL/ALN was cost-effective in US men and women at very high risk of fractures.