MickaelHiligsmannPh,DSetareh AWilliamsPhD,Lorraine AFitzpatrickMD,Stuart SSilvermanMD,RichardWeissMD,Jean-YvesReginsterMD, PhD
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.02.004Get rights and content
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).
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.
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 delayed effect of ABL in patients previously treated with an antiresorptive agent.
Sequential ABL/ALN therapy is cost-effective vs ALN monotherapy for US postmenopausal women aged ≥60 years at increased risk of fractures