Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide-to-alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate for osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture in Belgium. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide followed by alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture, from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab is reimbursed in Belgium since December 2021. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and to teriparatide-to-alendronate over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between five different health states every 6 months based on fracture risks or death. The model was populated with Belgium-specific epidemiological and cost data, where available. The fracture risk reduction of romosozumab treatment was collated from the ARCH study, and from a published network meta-analysis. Costs were included from a healthcare perspective (NIHDI). Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), reported in Euro (€) 2022. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: Romosozumab-to-alendronate was associated with 0.12 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €2314 compared to alendronate monotherapy, resulting in an ICER of €19,978. Compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate, romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be dominant, with higher QALYs and lower costs. The base-case results were robust to uncertainty in the input parameters when conducting the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide followed by alendronate for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

Economic evaluation of four treatment strategies for postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis and a recent fracture in mainland China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who have a recent fracture are at very high risk of fracture, and this study finds that stratified treatment based on fracture risk would be a cost-effective treatment option for this population. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four anti-osteoporosis medications (denosumab, zoledronate, teriparatide, and alendronate) for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in mainland China, using a stratified treatment strategy recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE). METHODS: A microsimulation Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the four treatments in postmenopausal osteoporotic patients of different ages (65, 70, 75, and 80 years), with a recent fracture from the Chinese healthcare perspective. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represent the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of model findings. RESULTS: Alendronate was dominated by denosumab-to-alendronate and zoledronate at all ages examined, indicating that the costs of the two drugs were lower, but QALYs was greater. However, teriparatide-to-alendronate yielded an ICER of $76,432.07/ QALY, compared with alendronate at age 65, which exceeded the pre-determined willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/ QALY. The results were similar at other ages. The DSA showed that the most sensitive parameters were drug efficacy for vertebral and wrist fractures, the relative risk of vertebral fractures, and the persistence of the drugs. The PSA showed that zoledronate had a 100% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/ QALY. CONCLUSION: Stratified treatment based on very high fracture risk is more cost-effective than conventional pills in mainland China. Among the stratified treatments, zoledronate is the optimal option.

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.

Biosimilarity Assessment of the Biosimilar Teriparatide Candidate and the Reference Drug in Healthy Subjects.

SAL001, a recombinant form of parathyroid hormone, is a biosimilar drug to teriparatide and is planned to be used in osteoporosis treatment. A single-dose, randomized, open-label, 2-way crossover trial was conducted in healthy subjects to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety between SAL001 and the reference drug. Sixty-four subjects were enrolled in the study, and 61 subjects completed the study. In each period, 20 µg of the test or reference formulation was administered subcutaneously. SAL001 was administered by autoinjector pen, whereas the reference drug was administered by a self-matched injection pen. Serial blood samples were obtained for the analyses of PK and serum calcium concentration. Geometric mean ratios with 90%CIs for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) were estimated. The safety of these 2 formulations was also evaluated. Overall, the 90%CIs for the geometric mean ratios of Cmax , AUC from time 0 to the last quantifiable time point, and AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity of the test or reference product were within 80.0%-125.0% of biosimilarity criteria. Other PK parameters, serum calcium concentration, and safety profiles had no significant differences between the 2 formulations. SAL001 demonstrated PK similarity to the reference drug, and the serum calcium concentration and safety profiles of SAL001 were also considered comparable to the reference drug.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of five drugs for treating postmenopausal women in the United States with osteoporosis and a very high fracture risk.

PURPOSE: Five strategies were recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) guidelines for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) patients with a very high fracture risk. We aimed to assess their cost-effectiveness in the United States (US). METHODS: A microsimulation Markov model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of five treatment strategies, including zoledronate, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab in PMO patients with a recent fracture from the healthcare perspective of the US. The data used in the model were obtained from published studies or online resources. Base-case analysis, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted for 65-, 70-, 75-, and 80-year-old patients. RESULTS: In base case, at 65 years, zoledronate was the cheapest strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, which represent incremental costs per QALY gained) of denosumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab against zoledronate were $13,020/QALY (quality-adjusted years), $477,331 /QALY, $176,287/QALY, and $98,953/QALY, respectively. Under a willing-to-pay (WTP, which means the highest price a consumer will pay for one unit of a good of service) threshold of $150,000/QALY, denosumab and romosozumab were cost-effective against zoledronate. The PSA results showed that denosumab was the most cost-effective option with WTP thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY. The results were similar in other age groups. The DSA results indicated that the most common parameters that have important influence on the outcome were drug persistence, incidence of adverse events, the efficacy of drugs on hip fractures and the cost of the drug. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among PMO patients with a very high fracture risk in the US, zoledronate is the cheapest strategy and denosumab is the most cost-effective choice among these five strategies.

A systematic review of cost­effectiveness analyses of sequential treatment for osteoporosis.

Sequential treatment of osteoporosis has been increasingly mentioned in recent years. However, the corresponding systematic review has not been reported. This study aims to systematically review and assess all full-text pharmacoeconomic studies of sequential treatment for osteoporosis. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), CNKI, and Wanfang Database to identify original articles, published before June 17, 2022. The quality of included articles was evaluated by the updated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF). In general, ten articles were included in this review. For the comparison between sequential treatment and bisphosphonate monotherapy, more than 75% of studies demonstrated the sequential treatment was cost-effective or dominant, with the exception of sequential treatment involving teriparatide. When the comparisons occurred between the two sequential treatment groups, the sequential treatments associated with either abaloparatide or romosozumab were cost-effective or dominant compared to the sequential treatment involving teriparatide. Several major key drivers of cost-effectiveness included drug cost, medication persistence and adherence, drug effect on fracture risk, offset effect, time horizon, and baseline fracture risk. The most of studies were identified as high quality in CHEERS (2022) and ESCEO-IOF. The cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment for osteoporosis is influenced by multiple factors. Generally, the sequential treatments involving abaloparatide, romosozumab, denosumab, and bisphosphonates may be considered as the preferred option for osteoporosis with high fracture risk, while the sequential treatment with teriparatide was not a cost-effectiveness strategy. The ESCEO-IOF and CHEER (2022) increase the transparency, comparability, extrapolation, and quality of research, engage patients and the general public in research on health services and policies, and help improve the quality of health technology assessment.

Romosozumabe para mulheres com osteoporose na pós menopausa, a partir de 70 anos, que apresentam risco muito alto de fratura por fragilidade e que falharam (apresentaram duas ou mais fraturas) com o padrão de tratamento medicamentoso / Romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, aged 70 years and older, who are at very high risk of a fragility fracture and who have failed (have had two or more fractures) with their standard of care

INTRODUÇÃO: A osteoporose é uma doença caracterizada pela baixa massa óssea acompanhada de deterioração da arquitetura óssea, o que aumenta o risco de fratura. Segundo a Organização Mundial de Saúde, a osteoporose é definida como DMO ≤ -2,5 desvios padrão abaixo do pico de massa óssea encontrada no adulto jovem. É uma doença geralmente é silenciosa até a ocorrência de fratura, que caracteriza seu principal desfecho clínico. O tratamento envolve abordagem não farmacológica e farmacológica. Na última modalidade, os Protocolos Clínicos e Diretrizes Terapêuticas (PCDT) da Osteoporose do Ministério da Saúde (2014) recomendam em primeira linha a utilização de bisfosfonatos (alendronato, risedronato ou pamidronato) e, em segunda linha, raloxifeno, calcitonina ou estrógenos conjugados. Contudo, o PCDT não apresenta informações sobre o tratamento subsequente em caso de falha, de modo que o paciente não teria opção terapêutica em terceira linha, justificando-se, assim, a avaliação do romosozumabe para esta população. PERGUNTA DE P

Cost-utility Analysis of Neoadjuvant Teriparatide Therapy in Osteopenic Patients Undergoing Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis study. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of neoadjuvant teriparatide therapy in osteopenic patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is increasing evidence supporting preoperative use of anabolic agents such as teriparatide for preoperative optimization of ASD patients with poor bone density. However, such treatments are associated with added costs. To our knowledge, the cost-utility of teriparatide in osteopenic patients undergoing ASD surgery has not been established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed for a hypothetical 68-year-old female patient with osteopenia ( T score <-1.0) undergoing a T11 to pelvis instrumented spinal fusion for ASD. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to create estimates for event probabilities, costs, and quality adjusted life years at each node. Key model assumptions were that administration of a 4-month preoperative teriparatide course reduced 2-year postoperative reoperation rates [for pseudarthrosis from 5% to 2.5% and for proximal junctional failure (PJF) from 15% to 5%]. Monte Carlo simulations were used to calculate the mean incremental cost utility ratio and incremental net monetary benefits. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the contribution of individual parameters to uncertainty in the model. RESULTS: Teriparatide was the favored strategy in 82% of the iterations. The mean incremental cost utility ratio for the teriparatide strategy was negative (higher net benefit, lower net cost), and lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality adjusted life year. Teriparatide use was associated with a mean incremental net monetary benefit of $3,948. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the factors with the greatest impact on the model were the incidence of PJF in the no teriparatide group, the duration and monthly cost of treatment, and the cost of reoperation due to PJF. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant teriparatide is a cost-effective strategy to reduce postoperative complications in patients with osteopenia undergoing ASD surgery.

Denosumabe e teriparatida para o tratamento indivíduos com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no Sistema Único de Saúde / Denosumab and teriparatide for the treatment of individuals with severe osteoporosis and therapeutic failure to the drugs available in the Unified Health System

INTRODUÇÃO: A osteoporose, doença que aumenta da fragilidade óssea e suscetibilidade à fratura, afeta cerca de 200 milhões de pessoas no mundo. No geral, a prevalência de osteoporose em estudos brasileiros varia de 6% a 33% dependendo da população e outras variáveis avaliadas. Entre os indivíduos com osteoporose, aqueles que apresentaram fratura osteoporótica têm duas vezes o risco para nova fratura. Para evitar novas fraturas, o tratamento preconizado deve incluir estratégias medicamentosas e não medicamentosas. Entre as medicamentosas, suplementação de cálcio e colecalciferol, alendronato, risedronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno, calcitonina e estrógenos conjugados são opções disponíveis no Protocolo Clínico de Diretrizes Terapêuticas (PCDT) de Osteoporose do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Apesar da disponibilidade de tratamentos, estima-se que 25% dos pacientes continuam a apresentar falha terapêutica aos tratamentos disponíveis. Nesse contexto, as diretrizes clínicas nacionais e internacionais de sociedade médicas, recomendam o uso de denosumabe ou teriparatida a pacientes com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS (alendronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno e risedronato). Entretanto, há incerteza se os benefícios identificados para população em tratamento de primeira linha, principal população incluída nos estudos, são sustentados em população com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica em vigência de tratamento; e se a escolha, por estas opções terapêuticas, pode valer a pena e ser viável economicamente para o SUS. Assim, o objetivo do presente relatório é analisar as evidências científicas sobre eficácia, efetividade, segurança, bem como evidências econômicas do denosumabe e da teriparatida para o tratamento de pacientes com osteoporose grave com falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS (alendronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno e risedronato). TECNOLOGIAS: Denosumabe (Prolia®) e teriparatida (Fortéo®). PERGUNTA: Os medicamentos denosumabe e

Comparative effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of abaloparatide and teriparatide in postmenopausal women new to anabolic therapy: A US administrative claims database study.

Real-world evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of abaloparatide versus teriparatide in women with osteoporosis may help inform treatment decisions. Following 18 months of treatment, abaloparatide was comparable to teriparatide for prevention of nonvertebral fractures, resulted in a 22% risk reduction for hip fractures, and demonstrated similar cardiovascular safety. Osteoporotic fracture risk can be reduced with anabolic or antiresorptive medications. In addition to efficacy and safety data from controlled clinical trials, real-world evidence on comparative effectiveness and safety may help inform treatment decisions. INTRODUCTION: The real-world effectiveness of abaloparatide versus teriparatide on nonvertebral fracture (NVF) incidence and cardiovascular safety during the 19-month period after treatment initiation were evaluated (NCT04974723). METHODS: Anonymized US patient claims data from Symphony Health, Integrated Dataverse (IDV)®, May 1, 2017 to July 31, 2019, included women aged ≥ 50 years with ≥ 1 prescription of abaloparatide or teriparatide and no prior anabolic therapy. Most were enrolled in commercial and Medicare health plans. Index was the date of the initial prescription dispensed during the identification period. In 1:1 propensity score matched cohorts, time to first NVF following index date, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and MACE + heart failure (HF) were compared between cohorts using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded 11,616 patients per cohort. Overall median age (interquartile range) was 67 (61, 75) years, and 25.6% had a fracture history. Over 19 months, 335 patients on abaloparatide and 375 on teriparatide had a NVF (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.89 [0.77, 1.03]), and 121 and 154 patients, respectively, had a hip fracture [HR (95% CI): 0.78 (0.62, 1.00)]. The MACE and MACE + HF rates were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Following 18 months of treatment, abaloparatide was comparable to teriparatide for prevention of NVF and similar cardiovascular safety was demonstrated between cohorts.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Teriparatide/Zoledronic Acid Compared With Zoledronic Acid Monotherapy for Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women in China.

Objective: We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid relative to zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. Methods: A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was updated to examine the cost-effectiveness of daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years (sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid), compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid vs. zoledronic acid monotherapy was $173,223/QALY at age 65 years, which was much higher than the pre-determined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $ 31,512/QALY, and the results were similar at other ages. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the two most impactful parameters were the cost of teriparatide and the residual effects of the medications included in this study. Sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid became cost-effective at age 80 with the cost of teriparatide reduced by 50%. Without the residual effect, the ICER increased to $257,982/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses shown that the probabilities of zoledronic acid monotherapy being cost-effective were 100% at a WTP of $31,512/QALY. Conclusions: Among Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid was not cost-effective unless the cost of teriparatide was reduced by 50% only for the participants over 80 years.

Implementation of chemometrics, design of experiments, and neural network analysis for prior process knowledge assessment, failure modes and effect analysis, scale-down model development, and process characterization for a chromatographic purification of Teriparatide.

Process understanding and characterization forms the foundation, ensuring consistent and robust biologics manufacturing process. Using appropriate modeling tools and machine learning approaches, the process data can be monitored in real time to avoid manufacturing risks. In this article, we have outlined an approach toward implementation of chemometrics and machine learning tools (neural network analysis) to model and predict the behavior of a mixed-mode chromatography step for a biosimilar (Teriparatide) as a case study. The process development data and process knowledge was assimilated into a prior process knowledge assessment using chemometrics tools to derive important parameters critical to performance indicators (i.e., potential quality and process attributes) and to establish the severity ranking for the FMEA analysis. The characterization data of the chromatographic operation are presented alongwith the determination of the critical, key and non- key process parameters, set points, operating, process acceptance and characterized ranges. The scale-down model establishment was assessed using traditional approaches and novel approaches like batch evolution model and neural network analysis. The batch evolution model was further used to demonstrate batch monitoring through direct chromatographic data, thus demonstrating its application for continuos process verification. Assimilation of process knowledge through a structured data acquisition approach, built-in from process development to continuous process verification was demonstrated to result in a data analytics driven model that can be coupled with machine learning tools for real time process monitoring. We recommend application of these approaches with the FDA guidance on stage wise process development and validation to reduce manufacturing risks.

Which injected antiosteoporotic medication is worth paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four injected antiosteoporotic medications including teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the four drugs above in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history of hip, vertebral, or wrist at various ages (65, 70, 75, and 80) of therapy initiation from the health care payer perspective. RESULTS: Denosumab was dominant (ie, lower costs and greater quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) compared with other strategies at all ages studied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of zoledronate or ibandronate versus no treatment were $4,482.88/ QALYs or $11,378/QALYs, respectively, at age 65 years, and the results at other ages were similar. In contrast, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of teriparatide strategy compared with no treatment exceeded the pre-determined threshold of a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY regardless of the adoption of the patient assistance program at all ages studied, and a threshold analysis showed that teriparatide without patient assistance program became cost-effective when the annual drug cost is decreased to $1,644.87 (current cost: $8,764.65). The cost-effectiveness decision did not change in most of the one-way sensitivity analyses. A scenario analysis considering no offset effect of denosumab showed that zoledronate had the potential to become the optimal option relative to denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective compared with other strategies were 100% at a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Among postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China, denosumab therapy is cost-effective at all ages examined from the health care payer perspective, compared with teriparatide, zoledronate, or ibandronate. This study will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in China.

An In Vitro Assessment of Immunostimulatory Responses to Ten Model Innate Immune Response Modulating Impurities (IIRMIs) and Peptide Drug Product, Teriparatide.

Understanding, predicting, and minimizing the immunogenicity of peptide-based therapeutics are of paramount importance for ensuring the safety and efficacy of these products. The so-called anti-drug antibodies (ADA) may have various clinical consequences, including but not limited to the alteration in the product's distribution, biological activity, and clearance profiles. The immunogenicity of biotherapeutics can be influenced by immunostimulation triggered by the presence of innate immune response modulating impurities (IIRMIs) inadvertently introduced during the manufacturing process. Herein, we evaluate the applicability of several in vitro assays (i.e., complement activation, leukocyte proliferation, and cytokine secretion) for the screening of innate immune responses induced by ten common IIRMIs (Bacillus subtilis flagellin, FSL-1, zymosan, ODN2006, poly(I:C) HMW, poly(I:C) LMW, CLO75, MDP, ODN2216, and Escherichia coli O111:B4 LPS), and a model biotherapeutic Forteo™ (teriparatide). Our study identifies cytokine secretion from healthy human donor peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) as a sensitive method for the in vitro monitoring of innate immune responses to individual IIRMIs and teriparatide (TP). We identify signature cytokines, evaluate both broad and narrow multiplex cytokine panels, and discuss how the assay logistics influence the performance of this in vitro assay.

Patterns of Teriparatide and Sequential Antiresorptive Agent Treatment Among Elderly Female Medicare Beneficiaries.

The 2020 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists guidelines for assessing osteoporosis among postmenopausal women stratified postmenopausal women with osteoporosis to "high" and "very-high" fracture risk categories and recommended anabolic agents as initial therapy followed by an antiresorptive agent. Switching the order can blunt the effect of anabolic agents, and failing to follow with an antiresorptive can lead to loss of bone generated by the anabolic agent. It would be helpful to understand the real-world prescribing patterns of anabolic agents. Using the 2010-2015 Medicare 100% osteoporosis database, we assessed patient profiles, teriparatide prescribers, persistence of teriparatide therapy, and antiresorptive agent use after teriparatide discontinuation among elderly women who initiated teriparatide from 2011 to 2013. This study included 14,786 patients. In the year before teriparatide initiation, 30.0% of them had a fracture, 67.6% had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry scan, 74.4% had a diagnosis of osteoporosis, and 47.9% used antiresorptive agents (non-naïve teriparatide users). Among those who had fractures, 49.4% initiated teriparatide within 3 months postfracture. Teriparatide was prescribed for 37% of users by primary care doctors, 19% by rheumatologists, 13% by endocrinologists, and 7.0% by orthopedists. Median time of teriparatide use was 7.2 months. After teriparatide discontinuation, 40.8% switched to antiresorptive agents (31.9% among naïve teriparatide users, 50.5% among non-naïve users). Among switchers, 42.5% switched within 60 days, 50.5% switched to denosumab, and 31.6% switched to oral bisphosphonates. This study of real-world prescribing data found that about half of teriparatide users switched from an antiresorptive agent, and less than half switched to antiresorptive agents after teriparatide discontinuation. Persistence of teriparatide use was suboptimal. In the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis, increasing the persistence of teriparatide use and improving the appropriate treatment sequence of anabolic and antiresorptive drugs are critical to maximizing gains in bone mass, providing the greatest protection against fractures. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

NMR Spectroscopy for Protein Higher Order Structure Similarity Assessment in Formulated Drug Products.

Peptide and protein drug molecules fold into higher order structures (HOS) in formulation and these folded structures are often critical for drug efficacy and safety. Generic or biosimilar drug products (DPs) need to show similar HOS to the reference product. The solution NMR spectroscopy is a non-invasive, chemically and structurally specific analytical method that is ideal for characterizing protein therapeutics in formulation. However, only limited NMR studies have been performed directly on marketed DPs and questions remain on how to quantitively define similarity. Here, NMR spectra were collected on marketed peptide and protein DPs, including calcitonin-salmon, liraglutide, teriparatide, exenatide, insulin glargine and rituximab. The 1D 1H spectral pattern readily revealed protein HOS heterogeneity, exchange and oligomerization in the different formulations. Principal component analysis (PCA) applied to two rituximab DPs showed consistent results with the previously demonstrated similarity metrics of Mahalanobis distance (DM) of 3.3. The 2D 1H-13C HSQC spectral comparison of insulin glargine DPs provided similarity metrics for chemical shift difference (Δδ) and methyl peak profile, i.e., 4 ppb for 1H, 15 ppb for 13C and 98% peaks with equivalent peak height. Finally, 2D 1H-15N sofast HMQC was demonstrated as a sensitive method for comparison of small protein HOS. The application of NMR procedures and chemometric analysis on therapeutic proteins offer quantitative similarity assessments of DPs with practically achievable similarity metrics.

Cost-effectiveness of sequential daily teriparatide/weekly alendronate compared with alendronate monotherapy for older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in Japan.

Using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling older osteoporotic Japanese women with prior vertebral fracture over a lifetime horizon, we found that daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years. PURPOSE: Teriparatide has proven efficacy in reducing osteoporotic fractures, but with substantial cost. We examined the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/alendronate (i.e., daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years) compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior clinical or morphometric vertebral fracture in Japan. METHODS: Using a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) from the perspective of a single payer responsible for both public healthcare and long-term care. We assumed a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5million (or $47,500) per QALY in the base case. We modeled the cost of biosimilar teriparatide, which has been available since November 2019 in Japan, assuming the efficacy was the same as that of the brand version. RESULTS: In the base case, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would become cost-effective with 85%, 50%, and 15% price discounts to teriparatide at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively, compared to the current biosimilar cost. Otherwise, results were especially sensitive to changes that affected efficacy of teriparatide or alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were 0%, 1%, and 37% at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk osteoporotic women in Japan, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy, even with the availability of biosimilar teriparatide.

Cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide for severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan.

This study assessed the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan, using bone mineral density (BMD) efficacy data. Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower cost than teriparatide/alendronate. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japanese women previously treated with bisphosphonates. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess the relative cost effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab versus 2 years of teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Outcomes for a cohort of women with a mean age of 78 years, a T-score ≤-2.5 and a previous fragility fracture were simulated over a lifetime horizon. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and used a discount rate of 2% per annum. To inform relative fracture incidence, the bone mineral density (BMD) advantage of romosozumab over teriparatide was translated into relative risks of fracture, using relationships provided by a meta-regression of osteoporosis therapy trials. Outcomes were assessed in terms of lifetime costs (2020 US dollars) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Base case results showed that, compared with teriparatide/alendronate, romosozumab/alendronate reduced costs by $5134 per patient and yielded 0.045 additional QALYs. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that results are robust to uncertainty in model assumptions and inputs. CONCLUSION: Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower total cost than teriparatide/alendronate.

Comparative effectiveness of denosumab, teriparatide, and zoledronic acid among frail older adults: a retrospective cohort study.

The comparative effects of zoledronic acid, denosumab, and teriparatide for preventing hip fractures in frail older adults, especially those in nursing homes, were unknown. We found that denosumab and zoledronic acid may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in nursing home residents. INTRODUCTION: Several non-oral drugs exist for osteoporosis treatment, including zoledronic acid (ZA), denosumab, and teriparatide. Little data exist on the comparative effectiveness of these drugs for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. We examined their comparative effectiveness in one of the frailest segments of the US population-nursing home (NH) residents. METHODS: We conducted a national retrospective cohort study of NH residents aged ≥ 65 years using 2012 to 2016 national US Minimum Data Set clinical assessment data and linked Medicare claims. New parenteral ZA, denosumab, and teriparatide use was assessed via Medicare Parts B and D; hip fracture outcomes via Part A; and 125 covariates for confounding adjustment via several datasets. We used inverse probability weighted (IPW) competing risk regression models to compare hip fracture risk between groups with teriparatide as the reference. RESULTS: The study cohort (N = 2019) included 1046 denosumab, 578 teriparatide, and 395 ZA initiators. Mean age was 85 years, 90% were female, and 68% had at least moderate functional impairment. Seventy-two residents (3.6%) had a hip fracture and 1100 (54.5%) died over a mean follow-up of 1.5 years. Compared to teriparatide use, denosumab use was associated with a 46% lower risk of hip fracture (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.00) and no difference was observed for ZA (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26-1.85). CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab and ZA may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. Given their lower cost and easier administration, denosumab and ZA are likely preferable non-oral treatments for most frail, older adults.

Assessment of the efficacy of teriparatide treatment for osteoporosis on lumbar fusion surgery outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Treatment of osteoporosis with medications like teriparatide, a parathyroid hormone, is known to improve bone density and reduce the risk of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Anecdotal and limited surgical series have described the utility of this treatment for osteoporotic patients prior to spinal fusion surgery, but there is variability in adoption of this strategy as well as consensus regarding optimal treatment duration before and after surgery. In this study, the clinical results of the use of teriparatide for this application are reviewed and critically examined. We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases using different MeSH terms from 1980 to 2020. Pooled and subgroup analyses were performed using fixed and random effect models based upon the heterogeneity (I2). The results were reported as either mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 771 patients from 12 studies were identified. Three hundred seventy-seven patients (90.8% females) were treated with teriparatide. Lumbar spinal fusion rates were significantly higher among patients who received teriparatide compared to the non-teriparatide group (OR 2.15, 95%CI 1.56-2.97, p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients receiving teriparatide demonstrated 2.12-fold and 2.23-fold higher likelihood of fusion compared to those in the bisphosphonate (OR 2.12, 95%CI 1.45-3.11, p = 0.0001) and placebo (OR 2.23, 95%CI 1.22-4.08, p = 0.009) cohorts, respectively. The treatment effect of teriparatide was associated with significantly reduced subsequent vertebral fractures (OR 0.16, 95%CI 0.06-0.41, p = 0.0002), sagittal malalignment (MD - 3.85, 95%CI: -6.49 to - 1.21, p = 0.004), limb visual analogue score (VAS) (MD - 0.36, 95%CI - 0.64 to - 0.09, p = 0.008), and spinal VAS (MD - 0.24, 95%CI - 0.44 to - 0.04, p = 0.02) compared to the non-teriparatide group. Patients using teriparatide had 30% less likelihood of screw loosening at last follow-up compared to the non-teriparatide group; however, this was not statistically significant (OR 0.70, 95%CI 0.43-1.14, p = 0.15). There did not exist any statistically significant difference between the two comparative groups in terms of pseudoarthrosis (OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.24-1.21, p = 0.13), cage subsidence (OR 1.30, 95%CI 0.38-4.52, p = 0.68), and bone mineral density (MD 0.04, 95%CI - 0.19-0.29, p = 0.74) at last follow-up examination. This meta-analysis corroborates the effectiveness of teriparatide resulting in higher fusion rates. Further study is required to determine the optimal duration of treatment and timing of surgery.