Treatment patterns in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis using abaloparatide: a real-world observational study.

Review of medical records from 173 women with osteoporosis who received abaloparatide treatment revealed that 96.0% had at least one visit for osteoporosis management and 55.5% had medication support group access. The most common reasons for discontinuing treatment were financial (31.2%) and tolerability (22.8%). Most patients (64.8%) completed treatment as prescribed. PURPOSE: Abaloparatide is approved for the treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. This study evaluated real-world treatment patterns for patients new to abaloparatide, regardless of osteoporosis treatment history. METHODS: Data for patients with ≥ 1 prescription for abaloparatide were collected retrospectively from six academic and clinical practice settings across the US. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 69.8 [7.4] years). At the time of abaloparatide treatment initiation, 78.6% had received other osteoporosis medications. Mean (SD) time from discontinuation of osteoporosis medications prior to initiation of abaloparatide was 1.7 (3.2) years. Twenty-four months of follow-up data from the initiation date of abaloparatide was collected from 94.0% of patients and 6.0% of patients had 12-24 months of follow-up. During the follow-up period, 96.0% of patients had at least one visit for osteoporosis management and 55.5% had access to a medication support program. The median duration of therapy was 18.6 months and 105/162 (64.8%) completed abaloparatide treatment as prescribed. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were financial (31.2%) and tolerability (22.8%). Following completion of a course of treatment with abaloparatide, 82/162 (50.6%) patients transitioned to another osteoporosis medication. The median time between abaloparatide treatment course completion and the initiation of follow-on medication was 21 days. CONCLUSION: Most patients completed treatment with abaloparatide as prescribed, and over half continued with an antiresorptive agent. This favorable conduct may be the result of regular follow-up visits and accessibility to both medication and patient support services.

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.

Response rates for lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck bone mineral density in men treated with abaloparatide: results from the ATOM study.

Osteoporosis in men is an underappreciated public health issue, accounting for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis. Although the prevalence of osteoporosis in men is lower, fracture-related morbidity and mortality rates exceed those of women. Abaloparatide is a synthetic, 34-amino acid peptide with homology to human parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP), which favors bone formation by selective activation of PTH receptor type 1. In the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM; NCT03512262) trial, 228 men with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of abaloparatide 80 µg or placebo. Abaloparatide significantly improved LS, TH, and FN BMD when compared with placebo. In this prespecified analysis, the proportion of men with a percent change from baseline of >0%, >3%, and > 6% in BMD at the LS, TH, and FN at 3, 6, and 12 mo and/or a shift in T-score category (based on LS and TH T-scores) at 12 mo was compared between the abaloparatide and placebo groups in ATOM. There were significantly more men with a BMD gain of >3% at all 3 anatomical sites in the abaloparatide than placebo group at month 6 (18/122 [14.8%] vs 1/70 [1.4%], P = .002) and at month 12 (38/119 [31.9%] vs 1/66 [1.5%], P < .0001). At month 3, more men treated with abaloparatide than placebo had a > 3% BMD increase at the LS (82/134 [61.2%] vs 21/68 [30.9%], P < .0001). A greater proportion of men treated with abaloparatide had an improvement in T-score category from osteoporosis to low BMD or normal when compared with placebo. In conclusion, use of abaloparatide compared with placebo for 12 mo resulted in significant and rapid improvements in BMD in men with osteoporosis from the ATOM study.

Real-World Management of Patients With Osteoporosis at Very High Risk of Fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Lack of consideration for risk-based assessments that inform osteoporosis treatment decisions may contribute to disease burden. In this study, we examined the prevalence of patients at very high risk of fracture and evaluated real-world treatment practices for these patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used real-world data linked to commercial and Medicare medical claims from Symphony Health PatientSource. Patients 50 years and older with osteoporosis (determined by the presence of a diagnosis code) and at very high risk of fracture according to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) (AACE/ACE) 2020 guidelines between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, were included. The number and proportion of patients treated with any osteoporosis medication were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 10,739,286 patients with osteoporosis, 5,078,111 (47.3%) were identified as meeting the AACE criteria for very high risk of fracture and were selected for the analysis. Most (5,033,106 [99.1%]) had a high risk of falls and/or a history of falls resulting in injury. Among the 1,667,794 patients (32.8%) eligible for treatment, 280,777 (16.8%) received treatment. Of these, 63.6% received alendronate, an alternative therapy, and 21.2% received a risk-based guideline-recommended medicine (teriparatide, zoledronic acid, denosumab, abaloparatide, or romosozumab). A greater proportion of men were untreated, 161,978 (90.5) compared with 1,185,003 women (81.8). DISCUSSION: Most patients at very high risk of fracture remain untreated. Most of those treated do not receive the appropriate recommended treatments for patients at high risk. Risk-based treatment decisions may allow for more appropriate medication selection.

An Evaluation of Treatment Patterns for Osteoporosis and Outcomes After a Fragility Fracture in a Real-World Setting.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment initiation and persistence after a fragility fracture are critical to reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. The authors evaluated osteoporosis management and outcomes after index fracture. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used real-world data for patients (≥50 years), including pharmacy claims linked to commercial and Medicare medical claims from Symphony Health Patient Source. Osteoporosis management was evaluated for at least 12 months after the first case-qualifying fracture during the identification period and continued until a second fracture or March 31, 2020 (depending on data availability). Secondary fracture incidence was evaluated overall and for subgroups at very high risk. RESULTS: Of 755,312 eligible patients, the proportion with a claim for bone mineral density testing at 12 months after index fracture was low [64,932 (8.6%)], and 75.3% of those tested were ≥65 years of age. Most patients (88.6%) remained untreated at any time after fracture. Among those treated, most (64.9%) were initially treated with bisphosphonates (oral, 93.7%; IV, 6.3%). Treatment duration and persistence were low for all treatments ranging from 6.5 months with 19.6% persistent for abaloparatide to 11.3 months with 45.0% persistent for denosumab. During follow-up, 13.6% of patients had a secondary fracture at any site, with higher incidence in subgroups considered to be at high risk for fracture than in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Low rates of osteoporosis testing and treatment initiation and high secondary fracture rates (particularly among patients at very high risk) highlight the need for better management of patients after a fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Bone Health Management in Elective Orthopaedic Surgery: A Claims-Based Observational Study.

Introduction: There are limited data on the management of bone health, including bone mineral density (BMD) evaluation and osteoporosis (OP) treatment, in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgeries. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from Symphony Health, PatientSource for patients aged ≥50 years with documented kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty (KP/VP), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA). Risk stratification to identify patients at very high risk for fracture (VHRFx) was based on clinical practice guideline recommendations to the extent information on variables of interest were available from the claims database. Results: A total of 251 919 patients met inclusion criteria: KP/VP (31 018), TKA (149 849), and THA (71 052). The majority were female (80.3%) with a mean (SD) age of 68.5 (7.5) years. Patients undergoing KP/VP were older and had a greater comorbidity burden associated with risk for falls, mobility issues, muscle weakness, and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. In the 6 months before surgery, 11.8% of patients were tested and/or received treatment for OP. Patients undergoing KP/VP were more likely to be tested and/or treated (17.5%) than patients undergoing TKA (11.0%) or THA (10.9%). Overall, men had a lower rate of testing and/or treatment than women (4.6% vs 13.5%). In the 12 months before surgery, patients with an OP diagnosis and at VHRFx (30.8%) had a higher rate of treatment and/or testing than those without OP (11.5%), or those without OP but with a fracture in the year preceding surgery (10.2%). Conclusions: Bone health management is suboptimal in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgeries and is worse in men than in women. Proper management of OP before and after surgery may improve outcomes.

Efficacy and Safety of Transdermal Abaloparatide in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis: A Randomized Study.

Anabolic therapies, recommended for patients at very high fracture risk, are administered subcutaneously (SC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the abaloparatide microstructured transdermal system (abaloparatide-sMTS) as an alternative to the SC formulation. This phase 3, noninferiority study (NCT04064411) randomly assigned postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (N = 511) 1:1 to open-label abaloparatide administered daily via abaloparatide-sMTS or SC injection for 12 months. The primary comparison between treatment groups was the percentage change in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) at 12 months, with a noninferiority margin of 2.0%. Secondary endpoints included percentage change in total hip and femoral neck BMD, bone turnover markers, dermatologic safety, and new clinical fracture incidence. At 12 months, percentage increase from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was 7.14% (SE: 0.46%) for abaloparatide-sMTS and 10.86% (SE: 0.48%) for abaloparatide-SC (treatment difference: -3.72% [95% confidence interval: -5.01%, -2.43%]). Percentage change in total hip BMD was 1.97% for abaloparatide-sMTS and 3.70% for abaloparatide-SC. Median changes from baseline at 12 months in serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) were 52.6% for abaloparatide-sMTS and 74.5% for abaloparatide-SC. Administration site reactions were the most frequently reported adverse events (abaloparatide-sMTS, 94.4%; abaloparatide-SC, 70.5%). Incidence of serious adverse events was similar between groups. Mild or moderate skin reactions occurred with abaloparatide-sMTS with no identifiable risk factors for sensitization reactions. Few new clinical fractures occurred in either group. Noninferiority of abaloparatide-sMTS to abaloparatide-SC for percentage change in spine BMD at 12 months was not demonstrated; however, clinically meaningful increases from baseline in lumbar spine and total hip BMD were observed in both treatment groups. © 2023 Radius Health, Inc and The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

The Efficacy and Safety of Abaloparatide-SC in Men With Osteoporosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abaloparatide significantly increased bone mineral density (BMD) in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis and decreased risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and clinical fractures compared with placebo. The Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men with Osteoporosis (ATOM; NCT03512262) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide compared with placebo in men. Eligible men aged 40 to 85 years with osteoporosis were randomized 2:1 to daily subcutaneous injections of abaloparatide 80 µg or placebo for 12 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD. Key secondary endpoints included BMD change from baseline at the total hip and femoral neck. A total of 228 men were randomized (abaloparatide, n = 149; placebo, n = 79). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups (mean age, 68.3 years; mean lumbar spine BMD T-score, -2.1). At 12 months, BMD gains were greater with abaloparatide compared with placebo at the lumbar spine (least squares mean percentage change [standard error]: 8.48 [0.54] versus 1.17 [0.72]), total hip (2.14 [0.27] versus 0.01 [0.35]), and femoral neck (2.98 [0.34] versus 0.15 [0.45]) (all p < 0.0001). The most common (≥5%) treatment-emergent adverse events were injection site reaction, dizziness, nasopharyngitis, arthralgia, bronchitis, hypertension, and headache. During 12 months of abaloparatide treatment, men with osteoporosis exhibited rapid and significant improvements in BMD with a safety profile consistent with previous studies. These results suggest abaloparatide can be considered as an effective anabolic treatment option for men with osteoporosis. © 2022 Radius Health Inc and The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

The effects of raloxifene on mammographic breast density: a review of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of invasive breast cancer (BC). It has been hypothesized that because raloxifene (RLX) has been shown to reduce BC risk, its use will result in reduced breast density. METHODS: This article provides a review of seven clinical studies that examined the effects of RLX on breast density. RESULTS: Overall, RLX did not increase or decrease mammographic breast density. This article provides a review of the various methods used to determine breast density in these RLX studies and offers a potential explanation as to why the studies failed to show an effect on mammographic density. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, no clinical recommendations can be made with regard to RLX and its effects on breast density. To determine the effect of RLX on breast density, larger studies need to be conducted in postmenopausal women with high breast density at baseline who are at high risk for BC, with a standardized method of breast density measurement.