Treatment patterns in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis using abaloparatide: a real-world observational study.

Review of medical records from 173 women with osteoporosis who received abaloparatide treatment revealed that 96.0% had at least one visit for osteoporosis management and 55.5% had medication support group access. The most common reasons for discontinuing treatment were financial (31.2%) and tolerability (22.8%). Most patients (64.8%) completed treatment as prescribed. PURPOSE: Abaloparatide is approved for the treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. This study evaluated real-world treatment patterns for patients new to abaloparatide, regardless of osteoporosis treatment history. METHODS: Data for patients with ≥ 1 prescription for abaloparatide were collected retrospectively from six academic and clinical practice settings across the US. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 69.8 [7.4] years). At the time of abaloparatide treatment initiation, 78.6% had received other osteoporosis medications. Mean (SD) time from discontinuation of osteoporosis medications prior to initiation of abaloparatide was 1.7 (3.2) years. Twenty-four months of follow-up data from the initiation date of abaloparatide was collected from 94.0% of patients and 6.0% of patients had 12-24 months of follow-up. During the follow-up period, 96.0% of patients had at least one visit for osteoporosis management and 55.5% had access to a medication support program. The median duration of therapy was 18.6 months and 105/162 (64.8%) completed abaloparatide treatment as prescribed. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were financial (31.2%) and tolerability (22.8%). Following completion of a course of treatment with abaloparatide, 82/162 (50.6%) patients transitioned to another osteoporosis medication. The median time between abaloparatide treatment course completion and the initiation of follow-on medication was 21 days. CONCLUSION: Most patients completed treatment with abaloparatide as prescribed, and over half continued with an antiresorptive agent. This favorable conduct may be the result of regular follow-up visits and accessibility to both medication and patient support services.

Outcomes post fragility fracture among members of an integrated healthcare organization.

This study highlights an unmet need in osteoporosis management, suggesting that beyond bone mineral density and fracture history, gender, fracture type, and age should be considered for fracture risk assessment. Following fragility fracture, men, patients with a spine or hip fracture, and those aged ≥ 65 have a higher disease burden. INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to characterize osteoporosis-related fracture incidence and identify predictors of subsequent fractures and mortality. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, conducted within Kaiser Permanente Southern California, included patients aged ≥ 50 years with qualifying fractures from 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016, identified from diagnosis/procedure codes. Rates for fracture incidence, mortality, and resource utilization in the year post-fracture are reported. Associations between index fracture types and demographic/clinical characteristics, and mortality, subsequent fracture, and rehospitalization outcomes were estimated. RESULTS: Of 63,755 eligible patients, 66.7% were ≥ 65 years and 69.1% female. Index fractures included nonhip/nonspine (64.4%), hip (25.3%), and spine (10.3%). Age-adjusted subsequent fracture rate/100 person-years was higher for those with an index spine (14.5) versus hip fracture (6.3). Hospitalization rate/100 person-years was highest for patients ≥ 65 (31.8) and for spine fractures (43.5). Men (vs women) had higher age-adjusted rates of hospitalization (19.4; 17.7), emergency room visits (73.8; 66.3), and use of rehabilitation services (31.7; 27.2). The 30-day age-adjusted mortality rate/100 person-years was 46.7, 32.4, and 15.5 for spine, hip, and nonspine/nonhip fractures. The 1-year age-adjusted mortality rate/100 person-years was 14.7 for spine and 15.6 for hip fractures. In multivariable analyses, spine and hip fractures (vs nonhip/nonspine fractures) were significant predictors of 1-year mortality, all-cause and osteoporosis-related hospitalization, and nursing home use (all P-values < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Morbidity is high in the year following a fragility fracture and men, patients with a spine or hip fracture, and those aged ≥ 65 have a greater disease burden.

Economic Burden of Osteoporosis-Related Fractures in the US Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis-related fractures are an important public health burden. OBJECTIVE: To examine health care costs in Medicare patients with an osteoporosis-related fracture. METHODS: Medicare fee-for-service members with an osteoporosis-related fracture between January 1, 2010, to September 30, 2014 were included. A nonfracture comparator group was selected by propensity score matching. Generalized linear models using a gamma distribution were used to compare costs between fracture and nonfracture cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 885 676 Medicare beneficiaries had fracture(s) and met inclusion criteria. Average age was 80.5 (±8.4) years; 91% were White, and 94% female. Mean all-cause costs were greater in the fracture vs nonfracture cohort ($47 163.25 vs $16 034.61) overall and for men ($52 273.79 vs $17 352.68). The highest mean costs were for skilled nursing facility ($29 216), inpatient costs ($24 190.19), and hospice care ($20 996.83). The highest incremental costs versus the nonfracture cohort were for hip ($71 057.83 vs $16 807.74), spine ($37 543.87 vs $16 860.49), and radius/ulna ($24 505.27 vs $14 673.86). Total medical and pharmacy costs for patients who experienced a second fracture were higher compared with those who did not ($78 137.59 vs $44 467.47). Proportionally more patients in the fracture versus nonfracture cohort died (18% vs 9.3%), with higher death rates among men (20% vs 11%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The current findings suggest a significant economic burden associated with fractures. Early identification and treatment of patients at high risk for fractures is of paramount importance for secondary prevention and reduced mortality.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and fluticasone/salmeterol combination among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients new to controller treatment: a US administrative claims database study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations (ICS/LABA) have emerged as first line therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with exacerbation history. No randomized clinical trial has compared exacerbation rates among COPD patients receiving budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC) and fluticasone/salmeterol combination (FSC) to date, and only limited comparative data are available. This study compared the real-world effectiveness of approved BFC and FSC treatments among matched cohorts of COPD patients in a large US managed care setting. METHODS: COPD patients (≥40 years) naive to ICS/LABA who initiated BFC or FSC treatments between 03/01/2009-03/31/2012 were identified in a geographically diverse US managed care database and followed for 12 months; index date was defined as first prescription fill date. Patients with a cancer diagnosis or chronic (≥180 days) oral corticosteroid (OCS) use within 12 months prior to index were excluded. Patients were matched 1-to-1 on demographic and pre-initiation clinical characteristics using propensity scores from a random forest model. The primary efficacy outcome was COPD exacerbation rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes included exacerbation rates by event type and healthcare resource utilization. Pneumonia objectives included rates of any diagnosis of pneumonia and pneumonia-related healthcare resource utilization. RESULTS: Matching of the identified 3,788 BFC and 6,439 FSC patients resulted in 3,697 patients in each group. Matched patients were well balanced on age (mean=64 years), gender (BFC: 52% female; FSC: 54%), prior COPD-related medication use, healthcare utilization, and comorbid conditions. During follow-up, no significant difference was seen between BFC and FSC patients for number of COPD-related exacerbations overall (rate ratio [RR]=1.02, 95% CI=[0.96,1.09], p=0.56) or by event type: COPD-related hospitalizations (RR=0.96), COPD-related ED visits (RR=1.11), and COPD-related office/outpatient visits with OCS and/or antibiotic use (RR=1.01). The proportion of patients diagnosed with pneumonia during the post-index period was similar for patients in each group (BFC =17.3%, FSC =19.0%, odds ratio=0.92 [0.81,1.04], p=0.19), and no difference was detected for pneumonia-related healthcare utilization by place of service. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no difference in COPD-related exacerbations or pneumonia events between BFC and FSC treatment groups for patients new to ICS/LABA treatment in a real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01921127 .

Real-World Evidence to Support the Registration of a New Osteoporosis Medicinal Product in Europe.

Real-World Evidence (RWE), which has historically been used to support post-approval safety studies, has recently gained acceptance for new drug applications as supportive evidence or as new clinical evidence for medicinal products with orphan designation and/or in disease areas with high unmet need. Here, we present a case study for the use of RWE in the approval of abaloparatide in the European Union (EU) under the tradename Eladynos. In addition to data from the pivotal Phase 3 study, the marketing authorization application (MAA) included clinical data from additional interventional and observational studies, as well as post-marketing data obtained from the United States (US) market since approval of abaloparatide by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017. The new interventional studies were not designed to assess fracture efficacy and cardiovascular safety which were topics of concern raised by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) during their review of the initial MAA submitted in 2015. However, these studies taken together with the RWE formed the basis for a new MAA. Prior to the planned resubmission in the EU, national Scientific Advice (SA) was sought on the proposed clinical program, specifically on the relevance of Real-World Data (RWD) derived from an observational study to support and complement the efficacy and safety data already available from prospective randomized clinical trials. This case study demonstrates successful use of RWE to address a previously identified gap raised by the CHMP during the review of an earlier MAA, which led to the approval of Eladynos for the treatment of osteoporosis in the EU.

Real-World Management of Patients With Osteoporosis at Very High Risk of Fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Lack of consideration for risk-based assessments that inform osteoporosis treatment decisions may contribute to disease burden. In this study, we examined the prevalence of patients at very high risk of fracture and evaluated real-world treatment practices for these patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used real-world data linked to commercial and Medicare medical claims from Symphony Health PatientSource. Patients 50 years and older with osteoporosis (determined by the presence of a diagnosis code) and at very high risk of fracture according to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) (AACE/ACE) 2020 guidelines between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, were included. The number and proportion of patients treated with any osteoporosis medication were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 10,739,286 patients with osteoporosis, 5,078,111 (47.3%) were identified as meeting the AACE criteria for very high risk of fracture and were selected for the analysis. Most (5,033,106 [99.1%]) had a high risk of falls and/or a history of falls resulting in injury. Among the 1,667,794 patients (32.8%) eligible for treatment, 280,777 (16.8%) received treatment. Of these, 63.6% received alendronate, an alternative therapy, and 21.2% received a risk-based guideline-recommended medicine (teriparatide, zoledronic acid, denosumab, abaloparatide, or romosozumab). A greater proportion of men were untreated, 161,978 (90.5) compared with 1,185,003 women (81.8). DISCUSSION: Most patients at very high risk of fracture remain untreated. Most of those treated do not receive the appropriate recommended treatments for patients at high risk. Risk-based treatment decisions may allow for more appropriate medication selection.

An Evaluation of Treatment Patterns for Osteoporosis and Outcomes After a Fragility Fracture in a Real-World Setting.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment initiation and persistence after a fragility fracture are critical to reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. The authors evaluated osteoporosis management and outcomes after index fracture. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used real-world data for patients (≥50 years), including pharmacy claims linked to commercial and Medicare medical claims from Symphony Health Patient Source. Osteoporosis management was evaluated for at least 12 months after the first case-qualifying fracture during the identification period and continued until a second fracture or March 31, 2020 (depending on data availability). Secondary fracture incidence was evaluated overall and for subgroups at very high risk. RESULTS: Of 755,312 eligible patients, the proportion with a claim for bone mineral density testing at 12 months after index fracture was low [64,932 (8.6%)], and 75.3% of those tested were ≥65 years of age. Most patients (88.6%) remained untreated at any time after fracture. Among those treated, most (64.9%) were initially treated with bisphosphonates (oral, 93.7%; IV, 6.3%). Treatment duration and persistence were low for all treatments ranging from 6.5 months with 19.6% persistent for abaloparatide to 11.3 months with 45.0% persistent for denosumab. During follow-up, 13.6% of patients had a secondary fracture at any site, with higher incidence in subgroups considered to be at high risk for fracture than in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Low rates of osteoporosis testing and treatment initiation and high secondary fracture rates (particularly among patients at very high risk) highlight the need for better management of patients after a fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Bone Health Management in Elective Orthopaedic Surgery: A Claims-Based Observational Study.

Introduction: There are limited data on the management of bone health, including bone mineral density (BMD) evaluation and osteoporosis (OP) treatment, in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgeries. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from Symphony Health, PatientSource for patients aged ≥50 years with documented kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty (KP/VP), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA). Risk stratification to identify patients at very high risk for fracture (VHRFx) was based on clinical practice guideline recommendations to the extent information on variables of interest were available from the claims database. Results: A total of 251 919 patients met inclusion criteria: KP/VP (31 018), TKA (149 849), and THA (71 052). The majority were female (80.3%) with a mean (SD) age of 68.5 (7.5) years. Patients undergoing KP/VP were older and had a greater comorbidity burden associated with risk for falls, mobility issues, muscle weakness, and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. In the 6 months before surgery, 11.8% of patients were tested and/or received treatment for OP. Patients undergoing KP/VP were more likely to be tested and/or treated (17.5%) than patients undergoing TKA (11.0%) or THA (10.9%). Overall, men had a lower rate of testing and/or treatment than women (4.6% vs 13.5%). In the 12 months before surgery, patients with an OP diagnosis and at VHRFx (30.8%) had a higher rate of treatment and/or testing than those without OP (11.5%), or those without OP but with a fracture in the year preceding surgery (10.2%). Conclusions: Bone health management is suboptimal in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgeries and is worse in men than in women. Proper management of OP before and after surgery may improve outcomes.

Hemoglobin A1c outcomes and health care resource use in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients treated with combination oral antidiabetic drugs through step therapy and loose-dose and fixed-dose combinations.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients initiating therapy with FDC vs. those with loose-dose combination (LDC) or step therapy (ST) in a managed care population. DESIGN: A retrospective claims database analysis. METHODOLOGY: Treatment-naive T2DM patients who were continuously enrolled in a health plan during 2006-2009 were studied. Eligible patients were assigned to FDC, LDC, or ST cohorts. Glycated hemoglobin goal attainment (HbA1c < 7%) was assessed using the American Diabetes Association (ADA) treatment guidelines. Health care resources use and costs, including inpatient, emergency room (ER), and ambulatoryvisits, were measured during the 12 months after therapy initiation. All-cause and diabetes-related use and costs were assessed. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 21,048 patients met study criteria (FDC n = 8,416, ST n = 8,407, LDC n = 4,225), and 1,926 of these patients had HbA1c results. FDC patients had lower rates of post-index all-cause inpatient stays and ER visits compared with the other cohorts. FDC patients had lower average counts of diabetes-related ambulatory visits (2.7) compared with ST (3.7; p < 0.001) and LDC (3.2; p < 0.001) and significantly lower average post-index all-cause and diabetes-related costs compared with the other cohorts, with average all-cause costs for FDC, ST, and LDC of $8,445, $10,515, and $9,688, respectively, and diabe-tes-related costs of $1,641, $2,099, and $1,900, respectively. FDC patients had higher rates of achieving HbA1c goal (61%) compared to ST (48%; p < 0.001) or LDC (52%; p = 0.015). Differences in outcomes remained following multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: Treatment with FDC was associated with lower health care resources use and costs and better likelihood of HbA1c goal attainment.

A Qualitative Study to Assess US Patient Preferences between new Transdermal System and Injectable Anabolic Therapies for Osteoporosis Treatment.

US patients with osteoporosis included in three focus groups identified efficacy, safety, cost, and convenience as important attributes of treatment when choosing between anabolic therapies with high stated preference for the solid Microstructured Transdermal System. OBJECTIVE: The current study evaluated patient perspective and relative importance of treatment attributes of in-home daily self-administration of abaloparatide-solid Microstructured Transdermal System (sMTS) compared with other anabolic agents (i.e. in-home daily subcutaneous self-injections, and monthly subcutaneous injections at doctor office) among a group of US patients with osteoporosis. METHODS: The current study included systematic literature reviews, experts' consultation and three online patients focus groups (n=27), including patients ≥50 years of age at high risk for fracture. Nominal Group Technique was used by asking patients to (1) Individually identify characteristics that would be important for them when choosing between anabolic treatments, (2) Share ideas and discuss perspectives with other patients, (3) Review additional attributes generated from a systematic literature review, (4) Select and rank individually the 7 most important characteristics from the list and (5) Report their acceptability and stated preference ranking between the three treatment options. RESULTS: Twenty women and 7 men with a mean age of 65 (range 51-85 years) participated in the focus groups. Twenty-four treatment characteristics were identified through focus groups and literature review. Efficacy, safety, out-of-pocket costs, strength of evidence and the option to self-administer were ranked as the most important attributes. The majority of patients stated preference for a daily sMTS if prescribed by their doctor. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that efficacy, safety, costs, and convenience are important attributes of osteoporosis treatment for US patients at high risk for fractures when choosing between anabolic therapies, with a high stated preference for sMTS.

Risk Factors for Incident Fracture in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: The Framingham Heart Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for fracture in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective study included members of the Framingham Original and Offspring Cohorts. Type 2 diabetes was defined as fasting plasma glucose >125 mg/dL or use of type 2 diabetes therapy. We used repeated-measures Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for associations between potential predictors and incidence of fragility fracture. RESULTS: Participants included 793 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Mean ± SD age was 70 ± 10 years; 45% were women. A total of 106 incident fractures occurred over 1,437 observation follow-up intervals. Fracture incidence increased with age (adjusted HRs 1.00, 1.44 [95% CI 0.65, 3.16], and 2.40 [1.14, 5.04] for <60, 60-70, and >70 years, respectively; P trend = 0.02), female sex (2.23 [1.26, 3.95]), HbA1c (1.00, 2.10 [1.17, 3.75], and 1.29 [0.69, 2.41] for 4.45-6.46% [25-47 mmol/mol], 6.50-7.49% [48-58 mmol/mol], and 7.50-13.86% [58-128 mmol/mol]; P trend =0.03), falls in past year (1.00, 1.87 [0.82, 4.28], and 3.29 [1.34, 8.09] for no falls, one fall, and two or more falls; P trend =0.03), fracture history (2.05 [1.34, 3.12]), and lower grip strength (0.82 [0.69, 0.99] per 5-kg increase). Femoral neck bone mineral density, BMI, smoking, physical function, chronic diseases, medications, and physical function were not associated with fracture incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Prior falls, fractures, low grip strength, and elevated HbA1c are risk factors for fractures in older adults with type 2 diabetes. Evaluation of these factors may improve opportunities for early intervention and reduce fractures in this high-risk group.

Phase 1b Evaluation of Abaloparatide Solid Microstructured Transdermal System (Abaloparatide-sMTS) in Postmenopausal Women with Low Bone Mineral Density.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Abaloparatide, an anabolic osteoporosis treatment administered by subcutaneous (SC) injection, increases bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The abaloparatide-solid Microstructured Transdermal System [abaloparatide-sMTS (Kindeva, St Paul, MN, USA)], which delivers abaloparatide intradermally, is in development to provide an alternative method for abaloparatide delivery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of subjects to self-administer abaloparatide-sMTS, based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic markers. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, Phase 1b study, 22 healthy postmenopausal women aged 50-85 years with low BMD were trained to self-administer abaloparatide-sMTS 300 µg once daily to the thigh for 5 min for 29 days. The primary endpoint was systemic exposure to abaloparatide. Secondary endpoints included percent change from baseline in serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP), patient experience, and safety. RESULTS: All 22 subjects completed the study. At baseline, mean age was 65.2 years, mean total hip T-score was - 1.32, and mean lumbar spine T-score was - 1.98. On Day 1, the median time to reach maximum concentration (Tmax) for abaloparatide-sMTS was 0.33 h and geometric mean (CV %) maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t) were 447 (38.0) pg/mL and 678 (45.3) pg·h/mL, respectively; the pharmacokinetic profile was similar on Days 15 and 29. Median percentage change in s-PINP was 45.4% and 64.4% at Days 15 and 29, respectively. The most common adverse events (AEs) were application site erythema, pain, and swelling, which were mostly of mild or moderate severity. No AEs led to study drug withdrawal and no serious AEs were reported. The success rate for self-administration at first application was 99.7%, and subject acceptability was high (~ 4.5 on a 5-point Likert Scale). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects successfully self-administered abaloparatide-sMTS, which provided a consistent pharmacokinetic profile over 29 days and produced s-PINP increases from baseline similar to that observed in the pivotal trial with abaloparatide-SC. Observed patient experience along with the clinical data support continued clinical development of abaloparatide-sMTS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04366726, Date of registration 04/29/2020, retrospectively registered.

Osteoporosis is a serious health condition that causes more than 2 million fractures in the USA annually. Treatment options for osteoporosis include drugs that prevent bone resorption and anabolic agents that build new bone. Bone anabolic agents, such as abaloparatide, have been shown to increase bone mineral density and reduce the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Currently, all bone anabolic agents are delivered by subcutaneous injection. However, some patients do not like injectable treatments, which can negatively impact patients' adherence to prescribed medication. In this study, we describe a novel mode of administration, the abaloparatide-solid Microstructured Transdermal System (abaloparatide-sMTS), which is applied to the thigh for 5 min and delivers abaloparatide intradermally. The study showed that this new method delivered abaloparatide into the blood as effectively as subcutaneous injections and demonstrated signs of activity in the body. Study participants were satisfied with abaloparatide-sMTS and found it easy to use. The most common side effects were skin related, including redness, pain, and swelling, which resolved shortly after dosing.

Gender Disparities in Osteoporosis Screening and Management Among Older Adults.

INTRODUCTION: One in two women and one in four men experience an osteoporosis-related fracture in their lifetime. Related morbidity and mortality rates are higher in men versus women. Current guidelines are inconsistent in the screening recommendations for osteoporosis in men. Examination of gender disparities in the management of osteoporosis-related fractures among Medicare enrollees is currently lacking. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study using 5% National Medicare claims data from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016, eligible patients who were at least 65 years of age on the date of a new fracture episode were classified into two mutually exclusive cohorts on the basis of whether they received testing and/or treatment for osteoporosis in the 6-month period after the new fracture episode. The cohorts were defined on the basis of the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) quality measure "osteoporosis management in women who had a fracture." Patients were followed to identify the occurrence of subsequent fracture, all-cause mortality, and a composite outcome-defined as the first occurrence of either subsequent fracture or mortality. Logistic regression models were carried out to identify predictors of testing and/or treatment and time-varying survival analysis to identify the relationship between the presence of testing and/or treatment and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 35,774 eligible patients, only 10.2% (12.1% women and 5.7% men) received osteoporosis testing and/or treatment within 6 months after a fracture. The interaction between gender and fragility fracture was significant (P < 0.0001). Fragility fracture had greater adjusted odds of testing and/or treatment among men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.47; 95% CI 2.94-4.10) than women (AOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.53-1.79). Of patients who were eligible for the outcome assessment, 27.5% experienced a subsequent fracture, 23.2% died, and 44.3% experienced a composite outcome during follow-up. Patients who received testing and/or treatment had a significantly lower hazard of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57; 95% CI 0.50-0.65; P < 0.0001) and the composite outcome (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.39-0.45; P < 0.0001), but no difference in the risk of subsequent fracture (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94-1.11; P = 0.6083). Men were found to have a significantly lower hazard of subsequent fracture (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.64-0.73; P < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.61-0.72; P < 0.0001), and the composite outcome (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.65-0.73; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Testing and/or treatment for osteoporosis among older adults with a fracture is poor in the Medicare fee-for-service population overall and worse for men compared to women. Receiving appropriate testing and/or treatment was associated with reduced mortality and the risk of composite outcome. Improving osteoporosis testing and/or treatment and reducing health disparities are essential for managing the clinical and economic burden of osteoporosis in the USA.

Development and validation of a one year predictive model for secondary fractures in osteoporosis.

The number of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States is no longer declining. Existing risk-based assessment tools focus on long-term risk. Payers and prescribers need additional tools to identify patients at risk for imminent fracture. We developed and validated a predictive model for secondary osteoporosis fractures in the year following an index fracture using administrative medical and pharmacy claims from the Optum Research Database and Symphony Health, PatientSource. Patients ≥50 years with a case-qualifying fracture identified using a validated claims-based algorithm were included. Logistic regression models were created with binary outcome of a second fracture versus no second fracture within a year of index fracture, with the goal of predicting second fracture occurrence. In the Optum Research Database, 197,104 patients were identified with a case-qualifying fracture (43% commercial, 57% Medicare Advantage). Using Symphony data, 1,852,818 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Average patient age was 70.09 (SD = 11.09) and 71.28 (SD = 14.24) years in the Optum Research Database and Symphony data, respectively. With the exception of history of falls (41.26% vs 18.74%) and opioid use (62.80% vs 46.78%), which were both higher in the Optum Research Database, the two populations were mostly comparable. A history of falls and steroid use, which were previously associated with increased fracture risk, continue to play an important role in secondary fractures. Conditions associated with bone health (liver disease), or those requiring medications that impact bone health (respiratory disease), and cardiovascular disease and stroke-which may share etiology or risk factors with osteoporosis fractures-were also predictors of imminent fractures. The model highlights the importance of assessment of patient characteristics beyond bone density, including patient comorbidities and concomitant medications associated with increased fall and fracture risk, in alignment with recently issued clinical guidelines for osteoporosis treatment.

Abaloparatide Real-World Patient Experience Study.

Despite the availability of various osteoporosis treatments, adherence remains suboptimal. One contributing factor may be patient experience with therapy. This US, multicenter, combined retrospective chart review and patient questionnaire study included postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture and is the first study to describe real-world patient experience with abaloparatide (ABL) injection. Eight geographically diverse secondary care sites in the United States participated (n = 193). Mean ± SD age was 67.4 ±8.62 years. Most patients (86%) were satisfied with the ABL regimen, especially with ease of preparation (82%), ease of storage (87%), and storage convenience (89%), an attribute 83% of the patients thought was important. The majority of patients reported complete satisfaction with the ABL regimen allowing for their ability to conduct daily activities (85%) and convenience to fit into their daily schedule (84%). All reported taking ABL as directed, by injection in the lower abdomen, and 83% of patients reported medium or high adherence. Patients were satisfied with the needle size (76% completely satisfied), and 93% reported never deliberately missing a dose. Although injecting medication (18%) and higher out-of-pocket costs (17%) were deemed the most bothersome attributes, the majority (69%) noted their healthcare team understands how osteoporosis impacts their lives. In multivariable analyses, ease of preparation (OR = 2.62; 95% CI, 1.01-6.81; p = 0.048) and fracture history (OR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.03-2.86; p = 0.037) were significantly associated with overall satisfaction. Ease of preparation was a predictor of higher satisfaction with treatment convenience (coefficient = 13.60; 95% CI, 8.08-19.12; p = 0.00). Remembering to take the medication was a significant predictor of self-reported adherence (OR = 16.66; 95% CI, 3.30-84.24; p = 0.001). In conclusion, the majority of patients were satisfied with ABL and found it convenient/easy to prepare and store. High self-reported adherence may be associated with positive patient experience including ease of use and adequate support from healthcare providers. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Effect of Abaloparatide on Bone Mineral Density and Fracture Incidence in a Subset of Younger Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis at High Risk for Fracture.

PURPOSE: Current treatment guidelines recommend treatment for postmenopausal women with a T score <2.5 regardless of age. This subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide in younger postmenopausal women considered to be at high risk for fracture. METHODS: Subgroup analysis of women in the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial who were <65 years old and met modified utilization management criteria (baseline T score ≤-2.5 [any site] and ≥1 prevalent vertebral and/or ≥1 prior clinical fracture within 5 years of randomization). FINDINGS: A total of 296 women (age range, 49-64 years) were included. Significant increases in bone mineral density from baseline were observed for abaloparatide versus placebo at all 3 sites at 6 months (p < 0.01 for total hip and femoral neck; p < 0.0001 for lumbar spine), 12 months (p < 0.0001 at all 3 sites), and 18 months (p < 0.0001 at all 3 sites). Fracture rates were numerically lower for abaloparatide versus placebo, consistent with the overall trial results, although the differences were not statistically significant. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 additional vertebral fracture after 18 months of treatment versus placebo was 18 for abaloparatide and 21 for teriparatide. The number needed to treat had nonsignificant trends toward lower values with abaloparatide versus teriparatide for nonvertebral fractures (23 vs 40) and clinical fractures (16 vs 73) and similar for major osteoporotic fractures (24 vs 27). The safety profile was consistent with the overall ACTIVE population. IMPLICATIONS: Findings of this subgroup (post hoc) analysis are consistent with the overall ACTIVE population. Abaloparatide appears to be effective and well tolerated in this subgroup of younger postmenopausal women. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01343004.

Economic burden of osteoporotic fractures in US managed care enrollees.

OBJECTIVES: To examine healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs in a population of managed care enrollees who experienced an osteoporotic fracture. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the Optum Research Database (January 2007 to May 2017). METHODS: All-cause and osteoporosis-related HRU and costs were analyzed in patients 50 years and older with a qualifying index fracture and continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months preindex (baseline period). RESULTS: Of 1,841,263 patients with fractures during the identification period, 302,772 met eligibility criteria. Two-thirds (66.6%) were 65 years and older, 71.6% were women, and 41.2% were commercial (not Medicare Advantage) enrollees. The most common fracture sites were spine (21.9%), radius/ulna (19.5%), and hip (13.7%). Mean (SD) total all-cause healthcare cost was $34,855 ($56,094), with most paid by health plans ($31,863 [$55,025]) versus patients ($2992 [$2935]). Most healthcare costs were for medical ($31,766 [$54,943]) versus pharmacy ($3089 [$6799]) services. Approximately 75% of patients received rehabilitation services (mean [SD] cost = $18,025 [$41,318]). Diagnosis of index fracture during an inpatient stay versus an outpatient visit (cost ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 2.13-2.19) and fractures at multiple sites (cost ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26) were the leading predictors of cost. Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative second-fracture rates were 6.6% at 1 year, 12.3% at 2 years, 16.9% at 3 years, and 20.9% at 4 years after index fracture. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a significant economic burden associated with fractures, including a high total all-cause cost of care. Early identification and treatment of patients at high risk of fractures are of paramount importance to reduce fracture risk and associated healthcare costs.

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.

Challenges in osteoporosis awareness and management: results from a survey of US postmenopausal women.

Background: Osteoporotic fractures are a serious public health burden, leading to excess morbidity, mortality, and high costs for post-fracture care. Objectives: To evaluate the perception of osteoporotic fracture risk and to identify potential barriers associated with osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment in US postmenopausal women. Methods: An online survey was conducted by The Harris Poll in 2017 that included 1,012 postmenopausal women 50 years and older. The survey comprised eight screening questions and 35 mandatory questions pertaining to lifestyle, general health, bone fracture awareness, osteoporosis, and demographics, with additional follow-up questions where applicable. An oversample of 102 women with osteoporosis and a fragility fracture (from a fall from a standing height or lower) yielded a total of 280 subjects with osteoporosis and a fracture. Results: A total of 1,012 postmenopausal women were included in the survey; 501 self-reported a diagnosis of osteoporosis and 511 had no known osteoporosis diagnosis. Ninety-six percent of women with a first fracture but no osteoporosis diagnosis did not recall being told by their physicians that their fracture might be related to osteoporosis. Forty-four percent of respondents reported that they had not undergone screening for osteoporosis. Among those considered at risk for osteoporosis, 42% had not undergone screening. Only 45% of women surveyed agreed that a fracture is "a potential sign of more fractures/breaks to come". Twenty-four percent believed there is no way to build new bone at their age; 18% answered that they could not do much to reduce the risk of fracture at their age. Conclusions: This survey reveals a lack of awareness of the diagnosis of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture risk among postmenopausal women. Future studies evaluating the perceptions of osteoporosis and its management are warranted.

Impact of fractures on quality of life in patients with osteoporosis: a US cross-sectional survey.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of osteoporosis-related fractures on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: Data were obtained from the 2016 Adelphi US Osteoporosis Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their male and female patients with osteoporosis. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures included the European Quality of Life 5 Domains (EQ-5D), European Quality of Life Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS), and Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire short-version (OPAQ-SV; physical, emotional, and symptom domains). Associations between PRO scores and the number and site of fractures were evaluated using ANOVA. Multivariate analyses were conducted using linear regression. Results: Physicians provided records for 1848 patients with osteoporosis. Of these, 981 (53.1%) completed the patient survey, data for the number of fractures were available for 935/981 (95.3%), and 185/935 (19.8%) had a history of fracture. Experiencing fractures significantly influenced scores on all PRO measures (p < .0001). Hip and spine fractures were associated with the greatest reduction in most PRO scores. The number of fractures, age, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were significantly associated with PRO measures (p < .05) in multivariate analyses. In patients with a fracture, fracture site, CCI, gender (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS), and age (OPAQ-SV physical only) were significantly associated with PRO measures. Conclusions: In patients with osteoporosis, fractures are associated with lower HRQoL and lower overall health status. Fracture history, fracture site, age, and comorbidity burden significantly influence HRQoL in individuals with osteoporosis. These data suggest the need for interventions to reduce the risk of fractures in patients with osteoporosis.