Mickael Hiligsmann1, Setareh A Williams2, Lorraine A Fitzpatrick2, Stuart S Silverman3, Richard Weiss2, Jean-Yves Reginster4. 1. Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.hiligsmann@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Radius Health, Inc., Waltham, MA, United States. 3. Cedar-Sinai Medical Center and UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, United States. 4. Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, KSA, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: M Chandran; P J Mitchell; T Amphansap; S K Bhadada; M Chadha; D-C Chan; Y-S Chung; P Ebeling; N Gilchrist; A Habib Khan; P Halbout; F L Hew; H-P T Lan; T C Lau; J K Lee; S Lekamwasam; G Lyubomirsky; L B Mercado-Asis; A Mithal; T V Nguyen; D Pandey; I R Reid; A Suzuki; T T Chit; K L Tiu; T Valleenukul; C K Yung; Y L Zhao Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: E Söreskog; F Borgström; I Lindberg; O Ström; D Willems; C Libanati; J A Kanis; B Stollenwerk; M Charokopou Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Nannan Li; Dennis Cornelissen; Stuart Silverman; Daniel Pinto; Lei Si; Ingrid Kremer; Sandrine Bours; Robin de Bot; Annelies Boonen; Silvia Evers; Joop van den Bergh; Jean-Yves Reginster; Mickaël Hiligsmann Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Elizabeth M Curtis; Jean-Yves Reginster; Nasser Al-Daghri; Emmanuel Biver; Maria Luisa Brandi; Etienne Cavalier; Peyman Hadji; Philippe Halbout; Nicholas C Harvey; Mickaël Hiligsmann; M Kassim Javaid; John A Kanis; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Olivier Lamy; Radmila Matijevic; Adolfo Diez Perez; Régis Pierre Radermecker; Mário Miguel Rosa; Thierry Thomas; Friederike Thomasius; Mila Vlaskovska; René Rizzoli; Cyrus Cooper Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 4.481