Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment

Trends in hip fracture rates in US male veterans

Osteoporotic fracture has been understudied in men. In US male veterans aged 50 years and older between 2002 and 2019, hip fracture incidence increased between 2006 and 2019, fewer than 6% of men underwent DXA, and fewer than 0.5% of men were treated. Investigation of low screening and treatment rates is warranted.

PURPOSE

In the United States, the annual incidence of osteoporotic hip fracture is estimated to be 250,000 to 300,000; the one-year mortality in some studies has been as high as 32%. Reports that hip fracture rates in US women 65 years and older may no longer be declining led to this investigation of hip fracture in men, a less studied population. We assessed the trends in the incidence of hip fracture in US male veterans 50 years and older of age as well as the rates of diagnosis and treatment in such men.

METHODS

We assessed the recent trends of hip fracture incidence in a nation-wide male veteran population 50 years and older of age. Using data from the US Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) 2002-2019, we calculated the annual age-standardized hip fracture incidence. Secondary objectives included evaluating the annual proportion of hip fracture patients who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) before or after the fracture and/or received osteoporosis medication after the hip fracture over the study period.

RESULTS

Hip fracture incidence increased in male veterans from 2006 to 2019. Fewer than 6% of men underwent a DXA scan and fewer than 0.5% received osteoporosis medications up to two years after a hip fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite available screening methods such as DXAs and medications for primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures, hip fracture incidence is not decreasing in older male veterans. Our study highlights a need for closer attention to fracture risk in men.

Efficacy and Safety of Generic Alendronate for Osteoporosis Treatment

Background

While osteoporosis increases the risk of fragility fractures, bisphosphonate has been proven to increase bone strength and reduce the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. In addition to its efficacy, substituting the brand with generic medication is a strategy to optimize healthcare expenditures. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of generic alendronate treatment and assess potential adverse events in patients with osteoporosis.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on 120 patients who met the indications for osteoporosis treatment, received weekly generic alendronate (70 mg) for >1 year, and underwent evaluation through standard axial dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The outcomes of this study were the percent change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip after one year of treatment. The major adverse events occurring during medication that led to the discontinuation of drug administration were documented.

Results

Most patients were female (96.7%) with an average age of 69.0 ± 9.3 years. The percent change in BMD increased at all sites after one year of generic alendronate treatment (lumbar spine: 5.6 ± 13.7, p-value <0.001; femoral neck: 2.3 ± 8.3, p-value = 0.023; total hip: 2.1 ± 6.2, p-value = 0.003), with over 85% of patients experiencing increased or stable BMD. Three patients discontinued the medication due to adverse effects: two had dyspepsia, and one had persistent myalgia.

Conclusion

Generic alendronate may be considered an effective antiresorptive agent for osteoporosis treatment with a low incidence of adverse effects.

Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening Using Biomechanical Computed Tomography for Patients With a Previous Abdominal CT

Osteoporosis screening rates by DXA are low (9.5% women, 1.7% men) in the US Medicare population aged 65 years and older. Addressing this care gap, we estimated the benefits of a validated osteoporosis diagnostic test suitable for patients age 65 years and older with an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan taken for any indication but without a recent DXA. Our analysis assessed a hypothetical cohort of 1000 such patients in a given year, and followed them for 5 years. Separately for each sex, we used Markov modeling to compare two mutually exclusive scenarios: (i) utilizing the CT scans, perform one-time "biomechanical computed tomography" (BCT) analysis to identify high-risk patients on the basis of both femoral strength and hip BMD T-scores; (ii) ignore the CT scan, and rely instead on usual care, consisting of future annual DXA screening at typical Medicare rates. For patients with findings indicative of osteoporosis, 50% underwent 2 years of treatment with alendronate. We found that BCT provided greater clinical benefit at lower cost for both sexes than usual care. In our base case, compared to usual care, BCT prevented hip fractures over a 5-year window (3.1 per 1000 women; 1.9 per 1000 men) and increased quality-adjusted life years (2.95 per 1000 women; 1.48 per 1000 men). Efficacy and savings increased further for higher-risk patient pools, greater treatment adherence, and longer treatment duration. When the sensitivity and specificity of BCT were set to those for DXA, the prevented hip fractures versus usual care remained high (2.7 per 1000 women; 1.5 per 1000 men), indicating the importance of high screening rates on clinical efficacy. Therefore, for patients with a previously taken abdominal CT and without a recent DXA, osteoporosis screening using biomechanical computed tomography may be a cost-effective alternative to current usual care. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Efficacy, cost, and aspects to take into account in the treatment of osteoporosis in the elderly

Age is one of the principal risk factors for development of frailty fractures. Age pyramids show a population that is becoming increasingly more elderly, with an increasing incidence of fractures, and the forecasts for the future are truly alarming. Adequate handling of these patients who are especially at risk, at both the preventive and care levels, with a well-defined orthogeriatric model is necessary to respond to this clinical challenge. The objective of this review is to analyze the efficacy of the different strategies for the handling of geriatric patients with fracture risk.

Hip fracture risk and safety with alendronate treatment in the oldest-old

BACKGROUND

There is high evidence for secondary prevention of fractures, including hip fracture, with alendronate treatment, but alendronate's efficacy to prevent hip fractures in the oldest-old (≥80 years old), the population with the highest fracture risk, has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether alendronate treatment amongst the oldest-old with prior fracture was related to decreased hip fracture rate and sustained safety.

METHODS

Using a national database of men and women undergoing a fall risk assessment at a Swedish healthcare facility, we identified 90 795 patients who were 80 years or older and had a prior fracture. Propensity score matching (four to one) was then used to identify 7844 controls to 1961 alendronate-treated patients. The risk of incident hip fracture was investigated with Cox models and the interaction between age and treatment was investigated using an interaction term.

RESULTS

The case and control groups were well balanced in regard to age, sex, anthropometrics and comorbidity. Alendronate treatment was associated with a decreased risk of hip fracture in crude (hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 (0.49-0.79), P < 0.001) and multivariable models (HR 0.66 (0.51-0.86), P < 0.01). Alendronate was related to reduced mortality risk (HR 0.88 (0.82-0.95) but increased risk of mild upper gastrointestinal symptoms (UGI) (HR 1.58 (1.12-2.24). The alendronate association did not change with age for hip fractures or mild UGI.

CONCLUSION

In old patients with prior fracture, alendronate treatment reduces the risk of hip fracture with sustained safety, indicating that this treatment should be considered in these high-risk patients.

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategy for postmenopausal Japanese women

Although an osteoporosis screening program has been implemented as a health promotion project in Japan, its cost-effectiveness has yet to be elucidated fully. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and found that osteoporosis screening and treatment would be cost-effective for Japanese women over 60 years.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and drug therapy in the Japanese healthcare system for postmenopausal women with no history of fracture.

METHODS

A patient-level state transition model was developed to predict the outcomes of Japanese women with no previous fracture. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for women who receive osteoporosis screening and alendronate therapy for 5 years and those who do not receive the screening and treatments. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the screening option compared with the no screening option was estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the influence of parameter uncertainty on the base case results.

RESULTS

The ICERs of osteoporosis screening and treatments for Japanese women aged 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and 75-79 years were estimated to be $89,242, $64,010, $40,596, $27,697, $17,027, and $9771 per QALY gained, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that several parameters such as the disutility due to vertebral fracture had a significant influence on the base case results. Applying a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability that the screening option became cost-effectiveness estimated to 50.9, 56.3, 59.1, and 64.7 % for women aged 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and 75-79 years, respectively. Scenario analyses showed that the ICER for women aged 55-59 years with at least one clinical risk factor was below $50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening and alendronate therapy for osteoporosis would be cost-effective for postmenopausal Japanese women over 60 years. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the individual need for osteoporosis screening should be determined by age and clinical risk factors.

The effect of osteoporosis management on proximal humeral fracture

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND

Proximal humeral fractures comprise 10% of fractures in the Medicare population. The effect, if any, of treating osteoporosis to prevent these fractures has not been determined. The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness of a systematic osteoporosis screening and treatment program on the hazard of developing a fracture over the treatment period. The secondary aim is to determine demographic risk factors.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study in a health care organization serving 3.3 million members. Individuals selected for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening were (1) women aged 65 years or older; (2) men aged 70 years or older; and (3) individuals aged 50 years or older who have a history of fragility fracture, use glucocorticoids, have a parental history of hip fracture, have rheumatoid arthritis, use alcohol at a high rate, or are cigarette smokers. Treatment consisted primarily of pharmacologic intervention with bisphosphonates.

RESULTS

Individuals diagnosed with osteoporosis had a hazard ratio of 7.43 for sustaining a fracture over the study period. Patients screened with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry had a hazard ratio of 0.17 whereas those treated medically had a hazard ratio of 0.55 versus untreated controls. Risk factors that significantly increased the risk of a fracture developing included age, female gender, white race, diabetes mellitus, and history of a distal radius fracture.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Over the study period, screening and treatment for osteoporosis significantly decreased the hazard ratio for proximal humeral fracture. This information broadens the impact of such programs because current best practices are primarily based on prevention of spine and hip fractures.

Expected lifetime numbers and costs of fractures in postmenopausal women with and without osteoporosis in Germany: a discrete event simulation model

BACKGROUND

Osteoporotic fractures cause a large health burden and substantial costs. This study estimated the expected fracture numbers and costs for the remaining lifetime of postmenopausal women in Germany.

METHODS

A discrete event simulation (DES) model which tracks changes in fracture risk due to osteoporosis, a previous fracture or institutionalization in a nursing home was developed. Expected lifetime fracture numbers and costs per capita were estimated for postmenopausal women (aged 50 and older) at average osteoporosis risk (AOR) and for those never suffering from osteoporosis. Direct and indirect costs were modeled. Deterministic univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The expected fracture numbers over the remaining lifetime of a 50 year old woman with AOR for each fracture type (% attributable to osteoporosis) were: hip 0.282 (57.9%), wrist 0.229 (18.2%), clinical vertebral 0.206 (39.2%), humerus 0.147 (43.5%), pelvis 0.105 (47.5%), and other femur 0.033 (52.1%). Expected discounted fracture lifetime costs (excess cost attributable to osteoporosis) per 50 year old woman with AOR amounted to € 4,479 (€ 1,995). Most costs were accrued in the hospital € 1,743 (€ 751) and long-term care sectors € 1,210 (€ 620). Univariate sensitivity analysis resulted in percentage changes between -48.4% (if fracture rates decreased by 2% per year) and +83.5% (if fracture rates increased by 2% per year) compared to base case excess costs. Costs for women with osteoporosis were about 3.3 times of those never getting osteoporosis (€ 7,463 vs. € 2,247), and were markedly increased for women with a previous fracture.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that osteoporosis causes a substantial share of fracture costs in postmenopausal women, which strongly increase with age and previous fractures.

A critical review of brand and generic alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis

Objective

Compare in vitro and in vivo characteristics and clinical outcomes of brand and generic alendronate.

Research design and methods: Relevant search terms were input into Medline ("alendronate" AND "generic" up to August 5, 2013) and any abstracts deemed possibly relevant selected for full paper review and abstraction.

Results

Multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trials of substantial size and duration have established the anti-fracture efficacy and safety of brand amino-bisphosphonates. For regulatory approval, generic versions of brand drugs need to demonstrate bioequivalence in young, healthy volunteers and have similar dissolution times. While the potency and amount of active drug within generic formulations must be identical to the brand, differences are permitted in the excipients. Significant differences in tablet disintegration time among different versions of generic and brand alendronate have been reported. Rapidly disintegrating alendronate pills may increase oesophageal bioadhesion and adverse event risk. Oesophageal-bound alendronate or slow disintegrating alendronate tablets may be made inert and ineffective by subsequently ingested food or drink. Investigations have reported a lower persistence to therapy with generic brands of alendronate as compared to brand bisphosphonates and patients switched from brand to generic alendronate have increased adverse event rates and losses in bone mineral density.

Conclusion

Numerous differences exist between brand and generic alendronate including: disintegration time, bioadhesion to the oesophagus, patient persistence to therapy, adverse event incidence, and maintenance of bone mineral density. Generic forms of alendronate warrant closer clinical study before they are ascribed the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of brand alendronate.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-550) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.