Cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide followed by alendronate vs. alendronate monotherapy in women at increased risk of fracture: A US payer perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Emerging evidence supports sequential therapy with anabolic followed by antiresorptive in patients at high-risk of fragility fractures. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) followed by alendronate (ALN) [(ABL/ALN)] compared to ALN monotherapy and to sequential treatment starting with antiresorptive therapy (ALN/ABL/ALN). METHODS: A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential ABL/ALN compared to ALN monotherapy and to sequential ALN/ABL/ALN from a lifetime US payer perspective. In line with practice guidelines, patients were assumed to receive ABL for 18 months followed by 5 years of ALN, or ALN monotherapy for 5 years, or a sequence of ALN for 2 years followed by 18 months of ABL and then by 3 years ALN. Evaluation was conducted for patients aged 50-80 years old with a BMD T-score ≤-3.5 and without a history of prior fracture, or with a T-score between -2.5 and -3.5 and a history of ≥ 1 osteoporotic fracture. RESULTS: Sequential ABL/ALN was cost-effective (threshold of US$150,000 per QALY) vs generic ALN monotherapy in women ≥60 years with a BMD T-score ≤-3.5 and in women with BMD T-score between -2.5 and -3.5 and history of osteoporotic fracture. In all simulated populations, sequential ABL/ALN therapy was dominant (lower costs, more QALYs) compared with sequential ALN/ABL/ALN, resulting from limited effect of ABL in patients previously treated with an antiresorptive agent. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential ABL/ALN therapy is cost-effective vs ALN monotherapy for US postmenopausal women aged ≥60 years at increased risk of fractures.

A pharmacist-run anabolic osteoporosis clinic: An abaloparatide descriptive report.

OBJECTIVES: To review the first-year experience of abaloparatide use in a pharmacist-run anabolic osteoporosis clinic. SETTING: This ambulatory-care health system endocrinology practice consists of 10 board-certified endocrinologists and 6 nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Approximately 1200 patients are seen weekly. The practice is affiliated with the Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences and hosts 2 clinical pharmacy faculty members and a PGY-2 endocrinology pharmacy resident. A pharmacist-run teriparatide clinic was implemented in 2002. In 2017, the clinic was expanded to accept referrals for abaloparatide. No description of a pharmacist-run abaloparatide clinic has yet been reported. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Patients are referred to a clinical pharmacist for initiation and education of anabolic osteoporosis therapy. The pharmacist is responsible for assessing for contraindications to anabolic therapy, securing managed care coverage of an anabolic agent, and providing medication counseling. This pharmacist is available as a resource to patients throughout their course of anabolic osteoporosis therapy. PRACTICE INNOVATION: This is the first description of a pharmacist-run abaloparatide clinic. EVALUATION: Not applicable. RESULTS: During its first year of availability, 52 patients were referred for abaloparatide therapy. Of these, 31 patients (59.6%) initiated treatment. The population predominately consisted of postmenopausal white women. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a history of an osteoporosis-related fracture, and half of patients had previously received antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis. Mean baseline T-scores for the lumbar spine and femoral neck were -2.41 and -2.57, respectively. Twenty-one patients did not initiate abaloparatide therapy owing to cost (9), concerns of therapy (8), or contraindication to therapy (4). An additional 5 patients discontinued abaloparatide therapy owing to adverse effects. CONCLUSION: This paper reviews the first-year experience of abaloparatide use in a pharmacist-run anabolic osteoporosis clinic. The fact that only 60% of referred patients initiated therapy indicates that significant barriers (e.g., high patient cost and safety concerns) remain.

Cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide vs. teriparatide for United States women at increased risk of fracture.

OBJECTIVES: There is emerging evidence supporting sequential therapy with an osteoanabolic followed by an antiresorptive in patients at high-risk of fragility fractures. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) followed by alendronate (ALN) [(ABL/ALN)] compared with teriparatide (TPTD) followed by ALN (TPTD/ALN). METHODS: A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential ABL/ALN compared with sequential TPTD/ALN and no treatment with a lifetime horizon from the US payer perspective. Patients were assumed to receive ABL or TPTD for 18 months followed by 5 years of ALN in line with clinical recommendations. The effects of ABL on fracture risk were derived from the ACTIVExtend trial. The effects of TPTD were assumed to be maintained during subsequent ALN treatment, consistent with ACTIVExtend findings for ABL. Evaluation was completed for patients, aged 50-80 years with a BMD T-score ≤ -3.5 or with a T-score between -2.5 and -3.5 and a history of ≥ one osteoporotic fracture. RESULTS: In all simulated populations, sequential ABL/ALN therapy was dominant (lower costs, higher QALYs) compared with sequential TPTD/ALN therapy, resulting from the improved efficacy and lower drug price of ABL. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that ABL/ALN was dominant in at least 99% of the simulations. Compared to no treatment, the cost per QALY gained of ABL/ALN was always below $130,000. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential ABL/ALN therapy is a cost-effective (dominant) strategy compared with sequential TPTD/ALN therapy for the treatment of US women at increased risk of fractures.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment of Abaloparatide Followed by Alendronate Versus Teriparatide Followed by Alendronate in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved abaloparatide (ABL) for treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture. With increasing health care spending and drug prices, it is important to quantify the value of newly available treatment options for PMO. OBJECTIVE: To determine cost-effectiveness of ABL compared with teriparatide (TPTD) for treatment of women with PMO in the United States. METHODS: A discrete-event simulation (DES) model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of ABL from the US health care perspective. The model included three 18-month treatment strategies with either placebo (PBO), TPTD, or ABL, all followed by additional 5-year treatment with alendronate (ALN). High-risk patients were defined as women with PMO ⩾65 years old with a prior vertebral fracture. Baseline clinical event rates, risk reductions, and patient characteristics were based on the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, the DES model yielded average total discounted per-patient costs of $10 212, $46 783, and $26 837 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 6.742, 6.781, and 6.792 for PBO/ALN, TPTD/ALN, and ABL/ALN, respectively. Compared with TPTD/ALN, ABL/ALN accrued higher QALYs at lower cost and produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $333 266/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. In high-risk women, ABL/ALN also had more QALYs and less cost over TPTD/ALN and yielded an ICER of $188 891/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. Conclusion and Relevance: ABL is a dominant treatment strategy over TPTD. In women with PMO at high risk of fracture, ABL is an alternative cost-effective treatment.