Dataset Information

The cost effectiveness of teriparatide as a first-line treatment for glucocorticoid-induced and postmenopausal osteoporosis patients in Sweden.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This paper presents the model and results to evaluate the use of teriparatide as a first-line treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). The study's objective was to determine if teriparatide is cost effective against oral bisphosphonates for two large and high risk cohorts.

Methods

A computer simulation model was created to model treatment, osteoporosis related fractures, and the remaining life of PMO and GIOP patients. Natural mortality and additional mortality from osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Costs for treatment with both teriparatide and oral bisphosphonates were included. Drug efficacy was modeled as a reduction to the relative fracture risk for subsequent osteoporosis related fractures. Patient health utilities associated with age, gender, and osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Patient costs and utilities were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates and teriparatide versus no treatment were estimated.For each of the PMO and GIOP populations, two cohorts differentiated by fracture history were simulated. The first contained patients with both a historical vertebral fracture and an incident vertebral fracture. The second contained patients with only an incident vertebral fracture. The PMO cohorts simulated had an initial Bone Mineral Density (BMD) T-Score of -3.0. The GIOP cohorts simulated had an initial BMD T-Score of -2.5.

Results

The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture PMO cohorts were €36,995 per QALY and €19,371 per QALY. The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture GIOP cohorts were €20,826 per QALY and €15,155 per QALY, respectively.

Conclusions

The selection of teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates as a first-line treatment for the high risk PMO and GIOP cohorts evaluated is justified at a cost per QALY threshold of €50,000.

SUBMITTER: Murphy DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3545974 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextIn postmenopausal women, bone mineral density (BMD) declines after teriparatide therapy is stopped. The pattern of BMD loss after teriparatide therapy is stopped in men is less clear.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to determine whether the pattern of teriparatide-induced bone accrual and post-teriparatide bone loss differs between postmenopausal women and eugonadal men.DesignWe conducted a prospective cohort substudy.PatientsThe study included 14 postmenopausal women and 17 eugonadal men, ages 46-85 yr, with lumbar spine or femoral neck BMD T-scores below -2.InterventionTeriparatide (37 microg sc daily) was administered for 24 months, followed by 12 months off therapy.Main outcome measuresWe measured BMD at various anatomic sites by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, trabecular spine BMD by quantitative computed tomography, and bone turnover markers during the treatment and observation periods. The response to teriparatide administration and discontinuation was compared between females and males.ResultsBMD of the spine, femoral neck, total hip, and trabecular spine increased similarly during the treatment period in men and women, whereas BMD at the radius was stable in men but decreased by 8.1 +/- 3.3% in women (P < 0.0001). After teriparatide was stopped, BMD at the posterior-anterior spine decreased by 7.1 +/- 3.8% in women and by 4.1 +/- 3.5% in men (P = 0.036). BMD at the total hip and femoral neck decreased by 3.8 +/- 3.9 and 3.1 +/- 4.3%, respectively, in women but remained stable in men (P < 0.05 for both sites). BMD at the distal radius remained stable in men but increased in women by 1.6 +/- 3.1% (P = 0.069).ConclusionsTeriparatide appears to increase BMD similarly in postmenopausal women and eugonadal men with osteoporosis. After teriparatide is stopped, the decline in BMD is greater in women than in men. If confirmed in larger cohorts, these findings would suggest that the indication for immediate antiresorptive therapy after teriparatide may not be as urgent in men as in women.

Project description:MicroRNAs regulate bone homeostasis, and circulating microRNAs have been proposed as novel bone biomarkers. The effect of anti-osteoporotic treatment on circulating microRNAs has not been described in detail. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive analysis of microRNA serum levels in ovariectomized (OVX) and sham-operated (SHAM) rats over 12 weeks of antiresorptive or osteoanabolic treatment. Forty-two Sprague Dawley rats underwent SHAM surgery (n = 10) or ovariectomy (n = 32). After 8 weeks, OVX rats were randomized to antiresorptive treatment with zoledronate (n = 11), osteoanabolic treatment with teriparatide (n = 11), or vehicle treatment (n = 10). Serum samples were collected at weeks 8, 12, 16, and 20 after surgery. A total of 91 microRNAs were analyzed by RT-qPCR in serum samples collected at week 20. Based on the results, 29 microRNAs were selected for longitudinal analysis at all four study time points. Changes in bone mineral density and microstructure were followed up by in vivo micro-CT and ex vivo nano-CT. Ovariectomy resulted in the loss of trabecular bone, which was reversed by osteoanabolic and antiresorptive treatment. Differential expression analysis identified 11 circulating miRNAs that were significantly regulated after treatment. For example, miR-107 and miR-31-5p increased in vehicle-treated OVX animals, whereas they decreased during teriparatide treatment. Additional miRNAs were identified that showed significant correlations to bone microstructure or bone miRNA expression, including miR-203a-3p, which exhibited a significant negative correlation to vertebral and tibial trabecular bone volume fraction (%). Longitudinal analysis confirmed eight microRNAs with significant changes in serum over time that were prevented by teriparatide and zoledronate treatment (miR-34a-5p, miR-31-5p, miR-30d-3p, miR-378a-5p) or teriparatide treatment only (miR-375-3p, miR-183-5p, miR-203a-3p, miR-203b-3p). Gene target network analysis identified WNT and Notch signaling as the main signaling pathways controlled by these miRNAs. Thus, ovariectomy results in time-dependent deregulation of circulating miRNAs compared with SHAM animals. Anti-osteoporotic treatments can rescue this effect, showing that bone-related miRNAs might act as novel biomarkers for treatment monitoring. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Project description:ImportanceTreatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.Main outcomes and measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.Conclusions and relevanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.