Cost-effectiveness analysis of five drugs for treating postmenopausal women in the United States with osteoporosis and a very high fracture risk

The cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis medications for preventing periprosthetic fractures following femoral neck fracture indicated hip arthroplasty: a break-even analysis

Osteoporosis treatment following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Our study evaluated the economic viability of treatment in patients following arthroplasty and demonstrates that treatment with oral bisphosphonates can be cost-effective in preventing PPF.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis treatment following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Although cost-effective in reducing the rate of secondary fragility fracture, the economic viability of osteoporosis treatment in preventing PPF has not been evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use a break-even analysis to determine whether and which current osteoporosis medications are cost-effective in preventing PPF following arthroplasty for FNFs.

METHODS

Three-year average cost of osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonates, estrogen hormonal therapy, intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, and abaloparatide), costs of PPF care, and PPF rates in patients who underwent hip arthroplasty for FNFs without osteoporosis treatment were used to perform a break-even analysis. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) related to osteoporosis treatment and sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention and break-even PPF rates.

RESULTS

Oral bisphosphonate therapy following arthroplasty for hip fractures would be economically justified if it prevents one out of 56 PPFs (ARR, 1.8%). Given the current cost and incidence of PPF, overall treatment can only be economically viable for PPF prophylaxis if the 3-year costs of these agents are less than $1500.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of lower cost osteoporosis medications such as oral bisphosphonates and estrogen hormonal therapy as PPF prophylaxis in this patient population would be economically viable if they reduce the PPF rate by 1.8% and 1.5%, respectively. For IV bisphosphonates and newer agents to be economically viable as PPF prophylaxis in the USA, their costs need to be significantly reduced.

Refracture following vertebral fragility fracture when bone fragility is not recognized: summarizing findings from comparator arms of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Since vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) might increase the risk of subsequent fractures, we evaluated the incidence rate and the refracture risk of subsequent vertebral and non-vertebral fragility fractures (nVFFs) in untreated patients with a previous VFF.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to February 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the occurrence of subsequent fractures in untreated patients with prior VFFs. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the selected studies. Primary outcomes were subsequent VFFs, while secondary outcomes were further nVFFs. The outcome of refracture within ≥ 2 years after the index fracture was measured as (i) rate, expressed per 100 person-years (PYs), and (ii) risk, expressed in percentage.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, ranging from medium to high quality. Among untreated patients with prior VFFs, the rate of subsequent VFFs and nVFFs was 12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9-16] and 6 (95% CI 5-8%) per 100 PYs, respectively. The higher the number of previous VFFs, the higher the incidence. Moreover, the risk of VFFs and nVFFs increased within 2 (16.6% and 8%) and 4 years (35.1% and 17.4%) based on the index VFF.

CONCLUSION

The highest risk of subsequent VFFs or nVFFs was already detected within 2 years following the initial VFF. Thus, prompt interventions should be designed to improve the detection and treatment of VFFs, aiming to reduce the risk of future FFs and properly implement secondary preventive measures.

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.

A Novel PTH-Related Peptide Combined With 3D Printed Macroporous Titanium Alloy Scaffold Enhances Osteoporotic Osseointegration

Previous parathyroid hormone (PTH)-related peptides (PTHrPs) cannot be used to prevent implant loosening in osteoporosis patients due to the catabolic effect of local sustained release. A novel PTHrP (PTHrP-2) that can be used locally to promote osseointegration of macroporous titanium alloy scaffold (mTAS) and counteract implant slippage in osteoporosis patients is designed. In vitro, PTHrP-2 enhances the proliferation, adhesion, and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) within the mTAS. Further, it promotes proliferation, migration, angiogenesis-related protein expression, and angiogenesis in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). Compared to PTH(1-34), PTHrP-2 can partially weaken the osteoclast differentiation of RAW 264.7 cells. Even in an oxidative stress microenvironment, PTHrP-2 safeguards the proliferation and migration of BMSCs and HUVECs, reduces reactive oxygen species generation and mitochondrial damage, and partially preserves the angiogenesis of HUVECs. In the Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat osteoporosis model, the therapeutic benefits of PTHrP-2-releasing mTAS (mTASP2 ) and ordinary mTAS implanted for 12 weeks via micro-CT, sequential fluorescent labeling, and histology are compared. The results demonstrate that mTASP2 exhibits high bone growth rate, without osteophyte formation. Consequently, PTHrP-2 exhibits unique local synthesis properties and holds the potential for assisting the osseointegration of alloy implants in osteoporosis patients.

Economic evaluation of four treatment strategies for postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis and a recent fracture in mainland China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who have a recent fracture are at very high risk of fracture, and this study finds that stratified treatment based on fracture risk would be a cost-effective treatment option for this population.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four anti-osteoporosis medications (denosumab, zoledronate, teriparatide, and alendronate) for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in mainland China, using a stratified treatment strategy recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE).

METHODS

A microsimulation Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the four treatments in postmenopausal osteoporotic patients of different ages (65, 70, 75, and 80 years), with a recent fracture from the Chinese healthcare perspective. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represent the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of model findings.

RESULTS

Alendronate was dominated by denosumab-to-alendronate and zoledronate at all ages examined, indicating that the costs of the two drugs were lower, but QALYs was greater. However, teriparatide-to-alendronate yielded an ICER of $76,432.07/ QALY, compared with alendronate at age 65, which exceeded the pre-determined willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/ QALY. The results were similar at other ages. The DSA showed that the most sensitive parameters were drug efficacy for vertebral and wrist fractures, the relative risk of vertebral fractures, and the persistence of the drugs. The PSA showed that zoledronate had a 100% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/ QALY.

CONCLUSION

Stratified treatment based on very high fracture risk is more cost-effective than conventional pills in mainland China. Among the stratified treatments, zoledronate is the optimal option.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Abaloparatide (ABL) significantly increases bone mineral density in men with osteoporosis similar to what was reported in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost effectiveness of sequential treatment with ABL followed by alendronate (ALN) in men at high fracture risk was compared to relevant alternative treatments.

METHODS

A Markov-based microsimulation model based on a lifetime US healthcare decision maker perspective was developed to evaluate the cost (expressed in US$2021) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained of sequential ABL/ALN. Comparators were sequential treatment unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Discount rates of 3% were used. Consistent with practice guidelines, patients received 18 months of ABL or TPTD followed by ALN for 5 years, or 5 years of ALN monotherapy. Analyses were conducted in high-risk men aged over 50 years defined as having a bone mineral density T-score ≤-2.5 and a recent fracture. Time-specific risk of subsequent fracture after a recent fracture, incremental costs up to 5 years following fractures, real-world medication adherence, and mostly US men-specific data were included in the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results.

RESULTS

Over the full age range, sequential ABL/ALN led to more QALYs for lower costs than sequential unbranded TPTD/ALN, while no treatment was dominated (more QALYs, lower costs) by ALN monotherapy. The costs per QALY gained of sequential ABL/ALN were lower than the US threshold of US$150,000 versus generic ALN monotherapy. The probabilities that sequential ABL/ALN was cost effective compared to ALN monotherapy were estimated at 51% in men aged 50 years and between 88 and 90% in those aged ≥ 60 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy using ABL/ALN may be cost effective compared with generic ALN monotherapy in US men aged ≥ 50 years at high fracture risk, especially in those aged ≥ 60 years. Unbranded TPTD/ALN and no treatment were dominated interventions (less QALY, more costs) compared with ABL/ALN or ALN monotherapy.