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.

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.

A Model for Assessing the Clinical and Economic Benefits of Bone-forming Agents for Reducing Fractures in Postmenopausal Women at High, Near-term Risk of Osteoporotic Fracture.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess and compare the potential clinical and economic value of emerging bone-forming agents using the only currently available agent, teriparatide, as a reference case in patients at high, near-term (imminent, 1- to 2-year) risk of osteoporotic fractures, extending to a lifetime horizon with sequenced antiresorptive agents for maintenance treatment. METHODS: Analyses were performed by using a Markov cohort model accounting for time-specific fracture protection effects of bone-forming agents followed by antiresorptive treatment with denosumab. The alternative bone-forming agent profiles were defined by using assumptions regarding the onset and total magnitude of protection against fractures with teriparatide. The model cohort comprised 70-year-old female patients with T scores below -2.5 and a previous vertebral fracture. Outcomes included clinical fractures, direct costs, and quality-adjusted life years. The simulated treatment strategies were compared by calculating their incremental "value" (net monetary benefit). FINDINGS: Improvements in the onset and magnitude of fracture protection (vs the teriparatide reference case) produced a net monetary benefit of $17,000,000 per 10,000 treated patients during the (1.5-year) bone-forming agent treatment period and $80,000,000 over a lifetime horizon that included 3.5 years of maintenance treatment with denosumab. IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating time-specific fracture effects in the Markov cohort model allowed for estimation of a range of cost savings, quality-adjusted life years gained, and clinical fractures avoided at different levels of fracture protection onset and magnitude. Results provide a first estimate of the potential "value" new bone-forming agents (romosozumab and abaloparatide) may confer relative to teriparatide.