Sex differences in recovery of quality of life 12 months post-fracture in community-dwelling older adults: analyses of the Australian arm of the International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (AusICUROS)

Osteoporosis in men-East and West: Can the twain meet? A perspective from Asia

Osteoporosis in men remains a significantly underrecognized condition, with notable differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk between Asian and Western populations. Despite 30% of hip fractures globally occurring in men, they are less likely to be diagnosed or treated for osteoporosis, especially in resource-limited settings. Given these disparities, a deeper understanding of osteoporosis epidemiology and treatment efficacy in men is essential, particularly in Asian populations. This review synthesizes the latest evidence on the epidemiology, screening, and treatment of osteoporosis in men, with a focus on genetic, environmental, and epidemiological disparities between Eastern and Western populations. Additionally, the review examines existing controversies surrounding fracture risk screening in men and evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, denosumab, and anabolic agents. Asian men exhibit lower peak BMD compared to their Caucasian counterparts, leading to potential misdiagnoses when using Caucasian-based BMD reference ranges. Screening tools like the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)® show variability in performance across populations. Data on pharmacological treatment in men remain limited, although studies suggest comparable benefits to those observed in women. Larger studies, particularly in male and Asian populations, are urgently needed to refine diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Osteoporosis in men is underdiagnosed and undertreated globally, with pronounced disparities between populations. Current diagnostic tools and treatment protocols are not fully tailored to male and Asian populations. There is an urgent need for longitudinal studies focusing on male-specific osteoporosis management to reduce fracture risk and improve outcomes.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide in US men and women at very high risk of fractures

BACKGROUND

Osteoporotic-related fractures represent an increasing burden to patients, health care systems and society.

AIMS

This study estimated cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) followed by alendronate (ALN) compared to relevant alternative strategies in US men and women aged 50 to 80 years at very high fracture risk (bone mineral density T-score ≤  - 2.5 and a recent fracture).

METHODS

A lifetime Markov-based microsimulation model was used to estimate healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Comparators were sequential treatment with unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Analyses were conducted based on initial fracture site (hip, vertebral, or any fracture) and treatment efficacy data (derived from clinical trials or a recent network meta-analysis).

RESULTS

From all analyses completed, sequential ABL/ALN demonstrated more QALYs for lower healthcare costs versus unbranded TPTD/ALN. No treatment was dominated (higher costs for less QALYs) versus ALN monotherapy. Sequential ABL/ALN resulted in favorable cost-effectiveness (at US threshold of $150,000/QALY) versus generic ALN monotherapy in men aged ≥ 50 years with any fracture type, women aged ≥ 65 years with any fracture type, and women aged ≥ 55 years having a hip or vertebral fracture.

DISCUSSION

Similar cost-effectiveness of sequential ABL/ALN versus unbranded TPTD/ALN, ALN monotherapy, and no treatment was observed in both US men and women at very high fracture risk, with a moderate improvement in cost-effectiveness in men versus women and in patients with a hip or vertebral fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy with ABL/ALN was cost-effective in US men and women at very high risk of fractures.

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.

Cost Effectiveness Analyses of Interventions for Osteoporosis in Men: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative for identifying and managing osteoporosis in men have increased substantially. With the approval of agents to treat men with osteoporosis, more economic evaluations have been conducted to assess the potential economic benefits of these interventions. Despite this concern, there is no specific overview of cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of osteoporosis in men.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims (1) to systematically review economic evaluations of interventions for osteoporosis in men; (2) to critically appraise the quality of included studies and the source of model input data; and (3) to investigate the comparability of results for studies including both men and women.

METHODS

A literature search mainly using MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases was undertaken to identify original articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2022. Studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis in men were included. The Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases and the International Osteoporosis Foundation osteoporosis-specific guideline was used to assess the quality of design, conduct, and reporting of included studies.

RESULTS

Of 2973 articles identified, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, classified into economic evaluations of active drugs (n = 8) or nutritional supplements (n = 4), intervention thresholds (n = 5), screening strategies (n = 6), and post-fracture care programs (n = 2). Most studies were conducted in European countries (n = 15), followed by North America (n = 9). Bisphosphonates (namely alendronate) and nutritional supplements were shown to be generally cost effective compared with no treatment in men over 60 years of age with osteoporosis or prior fractures. Two other studies suggested that denosumab was cost effective in men aged 75 years and older with osteoporosis compared with bisphosphates and teriparatide. Intervention thresholds at which bisphosphonates were found to be cost effective varied among studies with a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that ranged from 8.9 to 34.2% for different age categories. A few studies suggested cost effectiveness of screening strategies and post-fracture care programs in men. Similar findings regarding the cost effectiveness of drugs and intervention thresholds in women and men were captured, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men. The quality of the studies included had an average score of 18.8 out of 25 (range 13-23.5). Hip fracture incidence and mortality risk were mainly derived from studies in men, while fracture cost, treatment efficacy, and disutility were commonly derived from studies in women or studies combining both sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-osteoporosis drugs and nutritional supplements are generally cost effective in men with osteoporosis. Screening strategies and post-fracture care programs also showed economic benefits for men. Cost-effectiveness and intervention thresholds were generally similar in studies conducted in both men and women, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men.

A micro-costing analysis of post-fracture care pathways: results from the International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS)

This study identified the costs and health-related quality of life impacts of several post-fracture multidisciplinary care pathways specific to individual skeletal site (hip, distal forearm, vertebrae, humerus). These care pathways may assist healthcare providers in allocating resources for osteoporotic fractures in more effective and cost-efficient ways.

INTRODUCTION

This micro-costing study was undertaken to provide the estimated healthcare costs of several fracture site-specific health service use pathways associated with different trajectories of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 12-months post-fracture.

METHODS

The study included 4126 adults aged ≥ 50 years with a fragility fracture (1657 hip, 681 vertebrae, 1354 distal forearm, 434 humerus) from the International Costs & Utilities Related to Osteoporotic fractures Study (ICUROS). ICUROS participants were asked to recall the frequency and duration (where applicable) of their health and community care service use at 4- and 12-month follow-up visits. Patient-level costs were identified and aggregated to determine the average cost of healthcare use related to the fracture in each care pathway (presented in Australian 2021 dollars). Mean cost differences were calculated and analysed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni correction to determine any statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

The total direct cost of fractures was estimated at $89564, $38926, $18333, and $38461AUD per patient for hip, vertebral, wrist, and humeral participants, respectively. A Kruskal-Wallis test yielded a statistically significant difference in cost values between most care pathways (p < 0.001). Of the 20 care pathways, those associated with recovery of HRQoL had lower mean costs per patient across each fracture site.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the costs and HRQoL impacts of several multidisciplinary care pathways for individual fracture sites based on the health service utilization of an international cohort of older adults. These care pathways may assist healthcare providers in allocating resources for fragility fractures in more effective and cost-efficient ways.