Comparative Effectiveness of Abaloparatide and Teriparatide in Women 50 Years of Age and Older: Update of a Real-World Retrospective Analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Abaloparatide and teriparatide are osteoanabolic treatments indicated for postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture. In the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial In Vertebral Endpoints study, bone mineral density improvements were significantly greater with abaloparatide compared to teriparatide at the total hip and femoral neck. We conducted a retrospective claims study to examine the incidences of hip and nonvertebral fractures and cardiovascular events in women aged ≥50 years initiating abaloparatide or teriparatide therapy, expanding on a previous retrospective claims study. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used anonymized claims data from ICON's Symphony Health, PatientSource for women aged ≥ 50 years with ≥ 1 prescription fill for abaloparatide or teriparatide. The index date was the date of the initial prescription dispensed. Times to first hip fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and serious cardiovascular event were compared between logistic regression-based propensity score-matched cohorts and in predefined subgroups by age, prior antiresorptive use, and prior fracture using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Patients (21 676 per cohort) were well matched on 73 baseline parameters. Forty-five percent of patients in the abaloparatide arm and 47% in the teriparatide arm were exposed to treatment for longer than 12 months. Over 18 months (+ 30 days follow-up), 245 (1.1%) and 296 (1.4%) women in the abaloparatide and teriparatide cohorts, respectively, had a hip fracture (HR [95% CI] 0.83 [0.70, 0.98]; P = .027); 947 (4.4%) and 1078 (5.0%) had a nonvertebral fracture (0.88 [0.80, 0.96]; P = .003). There were no significant treatment-subgroup interactions (P ≥ .2). Cardiovascular events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There were significantly lower rates of hip and nonvertebral fractures with abaloparatide compared to teriparatide, which were consistent across subgroups. No differences in cardiovascular safety were noted between cohorts.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.