Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of sequential daily teriparatide/weekly alendronate compared with alendronate monotherapy for older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in Japan.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Mori T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8053143 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Teriparatide, currently only available in brand form in the United States, is a costly drug approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women who are at high risk of fracture. Because market exclusivity for brand teriparatide expired in August 2019 in the US, we sought to understand the potential health economic impact of the availability of generic or biosimilar (generic/biosimilar) teriparatide. We examined the cost-effectiveness of daily teriparatide for 2?years followed by weekly alendronate for 10?years (ie, sequential teriparatide/alendronate) compared with alendronate alone for 10?years in community-dwelling white osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80. Using an updated version of previously validated Markov microsimulation models, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $150,000 per QALY from a societal perspective with a lifelong time horizon. In the base case, we estimated the annual cost of teriparatide to be $20,161, based on the assumption of 10% brand usage (at a cost of $27,618) and 90% generic/biosimilar usage (priced 30% lower than brand). The ICERs of sequential teriparatide/alendronate compared with alendronate alone were greater than $280,000 per QALY at all ages examined. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to teriparatide's cost, with the cost of a generic/biosimilar product needing to be 65% to 85% lower than brand for sequential teriparatide/alendronate to be cost-effective. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, under the assumption that the annual cost of teriparatide was $20,161, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were less than 4% at a WTP of $150,000 per QALY. In conclusion, among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in the US, even with the potential availability of generic/biosimilar teriparatide, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would not be cost-effective unless the cost of generic/biosimilar teriparatide were heavily discounted with respect to the current brand cost. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:In this randomized, controlled trial, treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous injection of teriparatide for 72 weeks was found to be associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures compared with alendronate in women with primary osteoporosis who were at high risk of fracture.IntroductionTo determine whether the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide is superior to that of alendronate, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial was performed.MethodsJapanese women aged at least 75 years were eligible for the study if they had primary osteoporosis and were at high risk of fracture. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sequential therapy (once-weekly subcutaneous injection of teriparatide 56.5 μg for 72 weeks followed by alendronate for 48 weeks) or monotherapy with alendronate for 120 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures at 72 weeks (at the end of teriparatide treatment).ResultsBetween October 2014 and December 2017, 1011 patients (505 in the teriparatide group and 506 in the alendronate group) were enrolled. Of these, 778 patients (351 and 427, respectively) were included in the primary analysis. The incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in the teriparatide group (56 per 419.9 person-years, annual incidence rate 0.1334) than in the alendronate group (96 per 553.6 person-years, annual incidence rate 0.1734), with a rate ratio of 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.99, P = 0.04). In both groups, adverse events were most frequently reported in the following system organ classes: infections and infestations, gastrointestinal disorders, and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders.ConclusionOnce-weekly subcutaneous injection of teriparatide significantly reduced the incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures compared with alendronate in women with primary osteoporosis who were at high risk of fracture.Trial registrationjRCTs031180235 and UMIN000015573, March 12, 2019.

Project description:UNLABELLED:Daily teriparatide injections have been shown to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Here, we demonstrate that the magnitude of fracture risk reduction is independent of baseline fracture probability assessed by FRAX. INTRODUCTION:Daily administration of 20 or 40 ?g teriparatide has been shown to significantly decrease the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fracture compared with placebo. The aim of the present study was to evaluate fracture risk assessed at baseline using the FRAX® tool and to determine the efficacy of teriparatide as a function of baseline fracture risk. METHODS:One thousand six hundred thirty-seven postmenopausal women in the pivotal phase three trial, randomly assigned to receive placebo (n?=?544), teriparatide 20 ?g per day (n?=?541) or teriparatide 40 ?g per day (n?=?552), were studied. Baseline clinical risk factors were entered into country-specific FRAX models to compute the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures with or without input of femoral neck BMD. Because there was no difference in effect of 20 and 40 ?g teriparatide daily on fracture occurrence, the two active groups were merged. The interaction between probability of a major fracture and treatment efficacy was examined by Poisson regression. RESULTS:The 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (with BMD) ranged from 2.2-67.2 %. Treatment with teriparatide was associated with a 37 % decrease in all non-vertebral fractures (95 % CI 10-56 %) and a 56 % decrease in low-energy non-vertebral fractures (95 % CI 24-75 %) compared with placebo. The risk of morphometric vertebral fractures decreased significantly by 66 % (95 % CI 50-77 %). Hazard ratios for the effect of teriparatide on the fracture outcome did not change significantly with increasing fracture probability (p?>?0.30). Similar findings were noted for the interaction when BMD was excluded from the FRAX model, or when probability of hip fracture was used as the marker of baseline risk. CONCLUSION:We conclude that teriparatide significantly decreases the risk of non-vertebral and morphometric vertebral fractures in women by a similar extent, irrespective of baseline fracture probability.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The optimal treatment of osteoporosis after reconstruction surgery for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) remains unclear. In this multicentre retrospective study, we investigated the effects of typically used agents for osteoporosis, namely, bisphosphonates (BP) and teriparatide (TP), on surgical results in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. METHODS:Retrospectively registered data were collected from 27 universities and affiliated hospitals in Japan. We compared the effects of BP vs TP on postoperative mechanical complication rates, implant-related reoperation rates, and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion for OVF. Data were analysed according to whether the osteoporosis was primary or glucocorticoid-induced. RESULTS:A total of 159 patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion for OVF were included. The overall mechanical complication rate was significantly lower in the TP group than in the BP group (BP vs TP: 73.1% vs 58.2%, p =?0.045). The screw backout rate was significantly lower and the rates of new vertebral fractures and pseudoarthrosis tended to be lower in the TP group than in the BP group. However, there were no significant differences in lumbar functional scores and visual analogue scale pain scores or in implant-related reoperation rates between the two groups. The incidence of pseudoarthrosis was significantly higher in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) than in those with primary osteoporosis; however, the pseudoarthrosis rate was reduced by using TP. The use of TP also tended to reduce the overall mechanical complication rate in both primary osteoporosis and GIOP. CONCLUSIONS:The overall mechanical complication rate was lower in patients who received TP than in those who received a BP postoperatively, regardless of type of osteoporosis. The incidence of pseudoarthrosis was significantly higher in patients with GIOP, but the use of TP reduced the rate of pseudoarthrosis in GIOP patients. The use of TP was effective to reduce postoperative complications for OVF patients treated with posterior fusion.