In the US osteoporosis model at age 65, abaloparatide had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $176,287/QALY versus zoledronate.
In plain wordsIn a computer model, abaloparatide cost $176,287 per additional quality-adjusted life year compared with zoledronate.
- Peptide
- Abaloparatide (Tymlos)
- Outcome
- Not applicableIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio
- Study
n: not applicable
microsimulation Markov model- Comparator
- zoledronate
- Outcome group
- Cost-effectiveness · Whole body
Source sentences
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, which represent incremental costs per QALY gained) of denosumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab against zoledronate were $13,020/QALY (quality-adjusted years), $477,331 /QALY, $176,287/QALY, and $98,953/QALY, respectively.
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
In base case, at 65 years, zoledronate was the cheapest strategy.
A microsimulation Markov model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of five treatment strategies, including zoledronate, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab in PMO patients with a recent fracture from the healthcare perspective of the US.
Base-case analysis, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted for 65-, 70-, 75-, and 80-year-old patients.
In this study, Abaloparatide (Tymlos) was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Abaloparatide (Tymlos).