Cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide followed by alendronate vs. alendronate monotherapy in women at increased risk of fracture: A US payer perspective

Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic osteoporosis screening using chest radiographs with deep learning in Germany

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is often underdiagnosed due to limitations in traditional screening methods, leading to missed early intervention opportunities. AI-driven screening using chest radiographs could improve early detection, reduce fracture risk, and improve public health outcomes.

AIMS

To assess the cost-effectiveness of deep learning models (hereafter referred to as AI-driven) applied to chest radiographs for opportunistic osteoporosis screening in German women aged 50 and older.

METHODS

A decision tree and microsimulation Markov model were used to calculate the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (€2024) for screening with AI-driven chest radiographs followed by treatment, compared to no screening and treatment. Patient pathways were based on AI model accuracy and German osteoporosis guidelines. Women with a fracture risk below 5% received no treatment, those with 5-10% risk received alendronate, and women 65 + with a risk above 10% received sequential treatment starting with romosozumab. Data was validated by a German clinical expert, incorporating real-world treatment persistence, DXA follow-up rates, and treatment initiation. Sensitivity analyses assessed parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The cost per QALY gained from screening was €13,340, far below the typical cost-effectiveness threshold of €60,000. Optimizing follow-up, treatment initiation, and medication adherence further improved cost-effectiveness, with dominance achievable by halving medication non-persistence, and in women aged 50-64.

CONCLUSION

AI-driven chest radiographs for opportunistic osteoporosis screening is a cost-effective strategy for German women aged 50+, with the potential to significantly improve public health outcomes, reduce fracture burdens and address healthcare disparities. Policymakers and clinicians should consider implementing this scalable and cost-effective screening strategy.

Sequential and Long-term Therapy for Osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Osteoporosis requires life-long management. This involves the use of different drugs in various sequences followed by long-term maintenance therapy. This review highlights the important transitions among osteoporosis therapies and outlines a strategy of intermittent bisphosphonate therapy for long-term maintenance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past few years, the effects and limitations of long-term treatment with bisphosphonates and denosumab have become apparent as have several key factors in the sequential use of anti-remodeling drugs and osteoanabolic agents. Strategies for transitions from estrogen, bisphosphonates, denosumab and the bone-forming drugs will be discussed, based on extant evidence, clinical experience and expert opinion. By appropriate selection of both the initial and subsequent drugs for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, therapeutic benefits can be optimized and safety issues minimized. Developing a strategy for long-term maintenance of the benefits of the initial therapies can provide a life plan for managing patients with osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in the United States

Radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry (REMS) is an innovative, non-ionizing diagnostic technique that has shown high accuracy and precision, making it a promising alternative to DXA for osteoporosis diagnosis in clinical settings. With economic considerations playing an increasingly crucial role in healthcare decisions, this study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of improved osteoporosis diagnosis using REMS followed by treatment in the United States. A microsimulation-based Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (in US$2022) for REMS followed by treatment vs no diagnosis and treatment in US women aged 50 yr and older with osteoporosis. Women were categorized as high risk (receiving alendronate monotherapy for 5 yr) or very high risk (receiving an 18-mo course of anabolic treatment, abaloparatide, followed by 5 yr of alendronate). The study evaluated 2 medication adherence scenarios: one assuming full adherence to treatment and the other reflecting real-world adherence. The results indicate that REMS followed by treatment is associated with improved health outcomes, including more QALYs and fewer fractures, and reduced fracture-related costs compared to no diagnosis and treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REMS was estimated at $33 891 and $49 198 per QALY gained, under the full adherence and real-world adherence scenarios, respectively. These values are below the US cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Moreover, a 5% increase in the diagnosis and treatment of women over 50 yr at high and very high risk of fractures using REMS is projected to save approximately 30 000 life yr, 43 500 QALYs, and prevent 100 000 fractures over a lifetime under real-world medication adherence. In conclusion, this study suggests that REMS is a cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in US women, offering substantial potential economic benefits and improved health outcomes.

Recommendations for the optimal use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis

Bone forming agents, also known as anabolic therapies, are essential in managing osteoporosis, particularly for patients at very high-risk of fractures. Identifying candidates who will benefit the most from these treatments is crucial. For example, this group might include individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple vertebral fractures, a recent fragility fracture or those unresponsive to antiresorptive treatments. Definitions of patients with a very high fracture risk vary across nations, are often based on fracture history, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or fracture risk calculated by FRAX® or other algorithms. However, for very high-risk patients, anabolic agents such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are commonly recommended as first-line therapies due to their ability to stimulate new bone formation and improve bone microarchitecture, offering significant benefits in rapid fracture reduction over antiresorptive therapies. The cost-effectiveness of these agents is a critical consideration for decision-makers. Despite their higher costs, their effectiveness in significantly reducing fracture risk and improving quality of life can justify the investment, especially when long-term savings from reduced fracture rates and associated healthcare costs are considered. Additionally, after completing a course of anabolic therapy, transitioning to antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab is crucial to maintain the gains in bone density and minimize subsequent fracture risks. This sequential treatment approach ensures sustained protection and optimal resource utilization. In summary, the effective use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis requires a comprehensive strategy that includes accurate patient identification, consideration of cost-effectiveness, and implementation of appropriate sequential treatments, ultimately maximizing patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

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.

A systematic review of cost‑effectiveness 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.

The why and how of sequential and combination therapy in osteoporosis. A review of the current evidence

It is now well recognized that over the lifetime of a patient with osteoporosis, more than one medication will be needed to treat the disease and to decrease fracture risk. Though current gaps in osteoporosis therapy can be potentially mitigated with sequential and combination regimens, how to move seamlessly amongst the multiple treatments currently available for osteoporosis for sustained efficacy is still unclear. Data from recent studies show that an anabolic agent such as teriparatide or romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive affords maximal gain in BMD and possibly better and earlier fracture risk reduction compared to a regimen which follows the opposite sequence. Sequentially moving to a bisphosphonate such as alendronate from an anabolic agent such as abaloparatide has also been shown to preserve the fracture reduction benefits seen with the latter. This sequence of an anabolic agent followed by an antiresorptive should especially be considered in the high-risk patient with imminent fracture risk to rapidly reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. The data surrounding optimum timing of initiation of bisphosphonate therapy following denosumab discontinuation is still unclear. Though data suggests that combining a bisphosphonate with teriparatide does not provide substantial BMD gains compared to monotherapy, the concomitant administration of denosumab with teriparatide has been shown to significantly increase areal BMD as well as to increase volumetric BMD and estimated bone strength. This narrative review explores the available evidence regarding the various sequential and combination therapy approaches and the potential role they could play in better managing osteoporosis.

Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments

Osteoporosis care has evolved markedly over the last 50 years, such that there are now an established clinical definition, validated methods of fracture risk assessment and a range of effective pharmacological agents. Currently, bone-forming (anabolic) agents, in many countries, are used in those patients who have continued to lose bone mineral density (BMD), patients with multiple subsequent fractures or those who have fractured despite treatment with antiresorptive agents. However, head-to-head data suggest that anabolic agents have greater rapidity and efficacy for fracture risk reduction than do antiresorptive therapies. The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) convened an expert working group to discuss the tools available to identify patients at high risk of fracture, review the evidence for the use of anabolic agents as the initial intervention in patients at highest risk of fracture and consider the sequence of therapy following their use. This position paper sets out the findings of the group and the consequent recommendations. The key conclusion is that the current evidence base supports an "anabolic first" approach in patients found to be at very high risk of fracture, followed by maintenance therapy using an antiresorptive agent, and with the subsequent need for antiosteoporosis therapy addressed over a lifetime horizon.

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.

Development of the Asia Pacific Consortium on Osteoporosis (APCO) Framework: clinical standards of care for the screening, diagnosis, and management of osteoporosis in the Asia-Pacific region

Guidelines for doctors managing osteoporosis in the Asia-Pacific region vary widely. We compared 18 guidelines for similarities and differences in five key areas. We then used a structured consensus process to develop clinical standards of care for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis and for improving the quality of care.

PURPOSE

Minimum clinical standards for assessment and management of osteoporosis are needed in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region to inform clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to improve osteoporosis care. We present the framework of these clinical standards and describe its development.

METHODS

We conducted a structured comparative analysis of existing CPGs in the AP region using a "5IQ" model (identification, investigation, information, intervention, integration, and quality). One-hundred data elements were extracted from each guideline. We then employed a four-round Delphi consensus process to structure the framework, identify key components of guidance, and develop clinical care standards.

RESULTS

Eighteen guidelines were included. The 5IQ analysis demonstrated marked heterogeneity, notably in guidance on risk factors, the use of biochemical markers, self-care information for patients, indications for osteoporosis treatment, use of fracture risk assessment tools, and protocols for monitoring treatment. There was minimal guidance on long-term management plans or on strategies and systems for clinical quality improvement. Twenty-nine APCO members participated in the Delphi process, resulting in consensus on 16 clinical standards, with levels of attainment defined for those on identification and investigation of fragility fractures, vertebral fracture assessment, and inclusion of quality metrics in guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The 5IQ analysis confirmed previous anecdotal observations of marked heterogeneity of osteoporosis clinical guidelines in the AP region. The Framework provides practical, clear, and feasible recommendations for osteoporosis care and can be adapted for use in other such vastly diverse regions. Implementation of the standards is expected to significantly lessen the global burden of osteoporosis.

A novel economic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-forming agents in the prevention of fractures in patients with osteoporosis

A novel cost-effectiveness model framework was developed to incorporate the elevated fracture risk associated with a recent fracture and to allow sequential osteoporosis therapies to be evaluated. Treating patients with severe osteoporosis after a recent fracture with a bone-forming agent followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared with antiresorptive therapy alone. Incorporating these novel technical attributes in economic evaluations can support appropriate policy and reimbursement decision-making.

PURPOSE

To develop a cost-effectiveness model accommodating increased fracture risk after a recent fracture and treatment sequencing.

METHODS

A micro-simulation cost-utility model was developed to accommodate both treatment sequencing and increased risk with recent fracture. The risk of fracture was estimated and simulated using the FRAX® algorithms combined with Swedish registry data on imminent fracture relative risk. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, a sequential treatment starting with a bone-forming agent for 12 months followed by an antiresorptive agent for 48 months initiated immediately after a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) in a 70-year-old woman with a T-score of 2.5 or less was compared to an antiresorptive treatment alone for 60 months. The model was populated with data relevant for a UK population reflecting a personal social service perspective.

RESULTS

The cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the base-case setting was estimated at £34,584. Sensitivity analyses revealed the sequential treatment to be cost-saving compared with administering a bone-forming treatment alone. Without simulating an elevated fracture risk immediately after a recent fracture, the cost per QALY changed from £34,584 to £62,184.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating imminent fracture risk in economic evaluations has a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness when evaluating fracture prevention treatments in patients with osteoporosis who sustained a recent fracture. Bone-forming treatment followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared to antiresorptive therapy alone depending on treatment acquisition costs.

Abaloparatide followed by alendronate in women ≥80 years with osteoporosis: post hoc analysis of ACTIVExtend

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Objective:

Fracture risk increases with age, but few studies focus on persons ≥80 years. In the ACTIVE trial, treatment with abaloparatide for 18 months reduced osteoporotic fracture risk and increased bone mineral density. These effects were maintained with 24 months alendronate treatment in ACTIVExtend. We postulated that similar improvements in bone mineral density and safety would be demonstrated in women ≥80 years.

Methods:

Post hoc analyses of bone mineral density and fracture incidence in women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture ≥80 years from ACTIVExtend.

Results:

In total, 56 women aged ≥80 years at ACTIVE baseline entered the ACTIVExtend study; 46 of these completed the study. Mean age was 83.3 years; other baseline characteristics were similar. At the end of ACTIVE, bone mineral density increased at all sites for abaloparatide versus placebo. Bone mineral density increased in parallel in both groups during alendronate therapy (19 to 43 months) in ACTIVExtend. At month 43, mean percent change in bone mineral density from baseline was 17.2% abaloparatide/alendronate versus 8.6% placebo/alendronate (P < 0.0001) at the lumbar spine, 5.3% abaloparatide/alendronate versus 3.0% placebo/alendronate (P = 0.024) at the total hip, and 4.6% abaloparatide/alendronate versus 3.1% placebo/alendronate (P = 0.044) at the femoral neck. Fracture incidence was low and did not differ significantly between groups. Sequential treatment with abaloparatide followed by alendronate was well tolerated; the proportion of participants reporting adverse events was similar between groups.

Conclusions:

Sequential treatment with abaloparatide followed by alendronate (43 months follow-up) in this small subgroup of ACTIVExtend participants suggests abaloparatide is well tolerated and effective in women aged ≥80 years.

Video Summary:

Role of bone-forming agents in the management of osteoporosis

Recent evidence confirms the superiority of osteoanabolic therapy compared to anti-remodeling drugs for rapid improvement in bone density and fracture risk reduction, providing strong justification for the use of these anabolic agents as the initial therapy in high-risk patients, to be followed by anti-remodeling therapy. This review will highlight the results of recent studies and define the current status of osteoanabolic therapy for osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Italy

The use of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet, a convenient dosing regimen for bisphosphonate therapy, seems a cost-effective strategy compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis aged 60 years and over in Italy.

INTRODUCTION

To assess the cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate (ALN) 70 mg effervescent tablet compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Italy.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adjusted to the Italian healthcare setting to estimate the lifetime costs (expressed in €2019) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of buffered soluble ALN compared with generic ALN, denosumab, zoledronic acid and no treatment. Pooled efficacy data derived from the NICE network meta-analysis were used for bisphosphonate treatments. Two treatment duration scenarios were assessed: 1 year using persistence data derived from an Italian prospective observational study including 144 and 216 postmenopausal osteoporotic women on buffered soluble ALN and oral ALN, respectively, and 3 years. Analyses were conducted for women 60-80 years of age with a bone mineral density T-score ≤ - 3.0 or with existing vertebral fractures.

RESULTS

In all simulated populations, buffered soluble ALN was dominant (more QALYs, lower costs) compared to denosumab. The cost per QALY gained of buffered soluble ALN compared to generic ALN and no treatment always falls below €20,000 per QALY gained. In the 1-year treatment scenario, zoledronic acid was associated with more QALY than buffered soluble ALN but the cost per QALY gained of zoledronic acid compared with buffered soluble ALN was always higher than €70,000, while buffered soluble ALN was dominant in the 3-year treatment scenario.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that buffered soluble ALN represents a cost-effective strategy compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis women in Italy aged 60 years and over.

An Updated Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Drugs for Osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles.

RESULTS

The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvement was observed for most studies, which could potentially be explained by the fact that most studies were published prior to the osteoporosis-specific guideline. Greater adherence to guideline recommendations was expected for future studies. The quality of reporting was also suboptimal, especially with regard to treatment side effects, treatment effect after discontinuation, and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review provides an overview of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses. In comparison with a previous review, recent economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs were conducted in more countries and included more active drugs and sequential therapy as interventions/comparators. The updated economic evidence could help decision makers prioritize health interventions and the unmet/unreported quality issues indicated by the osteoporosis-specific guideline could be useful in improving the transparency, quality, and comparability of future economic evaluations in osteoporosis.

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.