The effect of teriparatide compared with risedronate on reduction of back pain in postmenopausal women with osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

UNLABELLED: The effect of teriparatide and risedronate on back pain was tested, and there was no difference in the proportion of patients experiencing a reduction in back pain between groups after 6 or 18 months. Patients receiving teriparatide had greater increases in bone mineral density and had fewer vertebral fractures. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to understand the effect of teriparatide in reducing back pain in patients with prevalent back pain and vertebral fracture compared to risedronate. METHODS: In an 18-month randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial, we investigated the effects of teriparatide (20 µg/day) vs. risedronate (35 mg/week) in postmenopausal women with back pain likely due to vertebral fracture. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of subjects reporting ≥30% reduction in worst back pain severity from baseline to 6 months as assessed by a numeric rating scale in each treatment group. Pre-specified secondary and exploratory outcomes included assessments of average and worst back pain at additional time points, disability and quality of life, bone mineral density, incidence of fractures, and safety. RESULTS: At 6 months, 59% of teriparatide and 57% of risedronate patients reported ≥30% reduction in worst back pain and there were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients experiencing reduction in worst or average back pain at any time point, disability, or quality of life. There was a greater increase from baseline in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (p = 0.001) and femoral neck (p = 0.02) with teriparatide compared to risedronate and a lower incidence of vertebral fractures at 18 months (4% teriparatide and 9% risedronate; p = 0.01). Vertebral fractures were less severe (p = 0.04) in the teriparatide group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in back pain-related endpoints, patients receiving teriparatide had greater skeletal benefit than those receiving risedronate.

Identifying cost-effective treatment with raloxifene in postmenopausal women using risk algorithms for fractures and invasive breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends considering treatment in women with a 20% or higher 10-year probability of a major fracture. However, raloxifene reduces both the risk of vertebral fractures and invasive breast cancer so that raloxifene treatment may be clinically appropriate and cost-effective in women who do not meet a 20% threshold risk. The aim of this study was to identify cost-effective scenarios of raloxifene treatment compared to no treatment in younger postmenopausal women at increased risk of invasive breast cancer and fracture risks below 20%. METHOD: A micro-simulation model populated with data specific to American Caucasian women was used to quantify the costs and benefits of 5-year raloxifene treatment. The population evaluated was selected based on 10-year major fracture probability as estimated with FRAX® being below 20% and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk as estimated with the Gail risk model ranging from 1% to 5%. RESULTS: The cost per QALY gained ranged from US $22,000 in women age 55 with 5% invasive breast cancer risk and 15-19.9% fracture probability, to $110,000 in women age 55 with 1% invasive breast cancer risk and 5-9.9% fracture probability. Raloxifene was progressively cost-effective with increasing fracture risk and invasive breast cancer risk for a given age cohort. At lower fracture risk in combination with lower invasive breast cancer risk or when no preventive raloxifene effect on invasive breast cancer was assumed, the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene worsened markedly and was not cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay of US $50,000. At fracture risk of 15-19.9% raloxifene was cost-effective also in women at lower invasive breast cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Raloxifene is potentially cost-effective in cohorts of young postmenopausal women, who do not meet the suggested NOF 10-year fracture risk threshold. The cost-effectiveness is contingent on their 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. The result highlights the importance of considering a woman's full risk profile when considering anti-osteoporosis treatment.

Hospital care of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures.

Resource implications of hospitalization for osteoporosis-related vertebral fracture are sparsely documented. This study utilized data abstracted from a national sample of hospitalized patients to identify characteristics of patients who are hospitalized with vertebral fracture and their patterns of resource utilization. These were compared with patterns observed for hip fracture hospitalizations. Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) for 1997 were used to identify men and women age 45 years and above who had a primary diagnosis of vertebral fracture. After patients whose fractures might have been due to metastatic cancer or severe trauma were excluded, 68,901 individuals hospitalized for vertebral fracture were identified. Seventy-seven percent of these were women, most were white, 75 years and older, and had multiple comorbid diagnoses. Total charges averaged 8000-10,000 US dollars per hospitalization and were higher in men. Mean length of stay was just under 6 days and more than 50% of discharged patients required some form of continuing care. Hospitalizations for vertebral fracture occurred at only one-fourth the rate of those for hip fracture, and created only half the hospital charges per admission. Vertebral fracture accounted for over 400,000 total hospital days and generated charges in excess of 500 million US dollars. This resource impact is considerably higher than has been described in prior studies.