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.

Persistence with biologic therapies in the Medicare coverage gap.

OBJECTIVES: To describe persistence with teriparatide and other biologic therapies in Medicare Part D plans with and without a coverage gap. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective (2006) cohort study of Medicare Part D prescription drug plan beneficiaries from a large benefits company. Two plans with a coverage gap (defined as "basic") were combined and compared with a single plan with coverage for generic and branded medications (defined as "complete"). METHODS: Patients taking alendronate (nonbiologic comparator), teriparatide, etanercept, adalimumab, interferon ß-1a, or glatiramer acetate were selected for the study. For patients with complete coverage, equivalent financial thresholds were used to define the "gap."The definition of discontinuation was failure to fill the index prescription after reaching the gap. RESULTS: For alendronate, 27% of 133,260 patients had enrolled in the complete plan. Patients taking biologic therapies had more commonly enrolled in complete plans: teriparatide (66% of 6221), etanercept (58% of 1469), adalimumab (52% of 824), interferon ß-1a (60% of 438), and glatiramer acetate (53% of 393). For patients taking either alendronate or teriparatide, discontinuation rates were higher in the basic, versus complete, plan (adjusted odds ratios, 2.02 and 3.56, respectively). Discontinuation did not significantly vary by plan type for etanercept, adalimumab, interferon ß-1a, or glatiramer acetate. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who reached the coverage gap, discontinuation was more likely for patients taking osteoporosis (OP) medication. Not having a coverage gap was associated with improved persistence with OP treatment.

The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Teriparatide is a promising new agent for the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide-based strategies compared with alendronate sodium for the first-line treatment of high-risk osteoporotic women. We developed a microsimulation with a societal perspective. Key data sources include the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, and the Fracture Prevention Trial. We evaluated postmenopausal white women with low bone density and prevalent vertebral fracture. The interventions were usual care (UC) (calcium or vitamin D supplementation) compared with 3 strategies: 5 years of alendronate therapy, 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and 2 years of teriparatide therapy followed by 5 years of alendronate therapy (sequential teriparatide/alendronate). The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the cost of alendronate treatment was 11,600 dollars per QALY compared with UC. The cost of sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was 156,500 dollars per QALY compared with alendronate. Teriparatide treatment alone was more expensive and produced a smaller increase in QALYs than alendronate. For sensitivity analysis, teriparatide alone was less cost-effective than alendronate even if its efficacy lasted 15 years after treatment cessation. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was less cost-effective than alendronate even if fractures were eliminated during the alendronate phase, although its cost-effectiveness was less than 50,000 dollars per QALY if the price of teriparatide decreased 60%, if used in elderly women with T scores of -4.0 or less, or if 6 months of teriparatide therapy had comparable efficacy to 2 years of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Alendronate compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective. Therapy with teriparatide alone is more expensive and produces a smaller increase in QALYs than therapy with alendronate. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy appear expensive but could become more cost-effective with reductions in teriparatide price, with restriction to use in exceptionally high-risk women, or if short courses of treatment have comparable efficacy to that observed in clinical trials.

Teriparatide: a review.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, the management of osteoporosis in men and women has included the use of antiresorptive agents in combination with calcium and vitamin D supplementation. The mechanism of action of teriparatide is unique in that it possesses anabolic properties and therefore builds bone. Since the approval of teriparatide in the United States in 2002, a great deal of interest regarding its use in osteoporosis has developed. OBJECTIVES: This article reviews the information available on the new recombinant human parathyroid hormone teriparatide (hPTH [1-34]), including its clinical pharmacology, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy, safety profile, potential drug interactions, contraindications and warnings, dosage and administration, and pharmacoeconomics. METHODS: The articles included in this review were identified through searches of PubMed and MEDLINE (1966-December 2003) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-December 2003). Search terms included teriparatide, Forteo, recombinant human parathyroid hormone (1-34), and osteoporosis. The references of the identified articles were reviewed for additional publications. Specific product information was also obtained from the manufacturer of teriparatide. RESULTS: Teriparatide has been studied in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, drug-induced osteoporosis (specifically, corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis), and men with osteoporosis. The data available from various clinical trials have shown an increase in both bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) with the use of teriparatide compared with placebo. One study found that women treated with the 20-microg dose and the 40-microg dose were 35% and 40%, respectively, less likely to have one or more new nonvertebral fractures compared with placebo (P = 0.02). Another study compared the use of daily teriparatide 40-microg injections versus oral daily alendronate. Results showed that the incidence of nonvertebral fractures was significantly lower in the teriparatide group than the alendronate group (P < 0.05). A study using 20- and 40-microg daily injections of teriparatide was performed in men with osteoporosis. There was a statistically significant increase in lumbar spine BMD of 5.9% in the 20-microg group and 9.0% in the 40-microg group (both, P < 0.001). In the femoral neck, a 1.5% increase in BMD occurred in the 20-microg group (P = 0.021) and a 0.9% increase in the 40-microg group (P < 0.001). A limited number of studies are available assessing the combination of antiresorptive medications and teriparatide; however, the available data suggest that the effects of teriperatide do not require prior stimulation of bone resorption. CONCLUSIONS: Teriparatide has been shown clinically to improve BMD and BMC in postmenopausal women and in men. Because of its anabolic capabilities, teriparatide can be used as an alternative to the traditional therapies that are currently available for the treatment of osteoporosis, with scheduled monitoring for adverse effects such as hypercalcemia and urinary calcium excretion. In 1 study, mild hypercalcemia was seen most often 4 to 6 hours after SC injection of teriparatide before returning to normal. Urinary calcium was observed to increase by 30 mg/d (0.75 mmol/d) with teriparatide.