Literature DB >> 15176986

Osteoporosis and the global competition for health care resources.

L Joseph Melton1, Olof Johnell, Edith Lau, Carlos A Mautalen, Ego Seeman.   

Abstract

Global aging superimposed on existing infectious diseases and trauma will aggravate competition for health care resources to diagnose and treat osteoporosis. Efforts to implement public health measures are needed, but the targeted approach to assessment and treatment of high-risk individuals must also be refined. Increases in the elderly population worldwide will cause a dramatic rise in osteoporotic fractures, but other age-related diseases will increase as well. Changes will be superimposed on existing public health problems (e.g., malaria, alcoholism), and these acute health care needs will take priority in some areas. Societies in most parts of the world may have to limit osteoporosis control to broad public health measures, and such efforts (e.g., calcium and vitamin D supplementation) should be supported. In these regions, clinical decision-making will generally be limited to treating patients with fractures (who presumably have already failed any public health measures in place), or in a few wealthy countries, to patients with low bone density identified by case-finding. Case-finding approaches will vary with the resources available, although unselective (mass) screening by bone densitometry is largely ineffective and unaffordable anywhere. The key to clinical decision-making on behalf of individuals will be an assessment of absolute fracture risk, and the tools needed to predict the risk of an osteoporotic fracture over the next 10 years are now being developed. These include bone density measures, but also incorporate other risk factors (e.g., fracture history, corticosteroid use), which may allow extension of fracture risk prediction to nonwhite populations and to men. Even with a universal risk prediction tool, cost-effective treatment thresholds will vary by country based on the level of fracture risk in the region and on the resources available for health care. To better compete for these resources, efforts should be made to lower the cost of osteoporosis interventions. Additionally, evidence is needed that these interventions are really effective in reducing fractures in the community.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15176986     DOI: 10.1359/JBMR.040316

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  14 in total

Review 1.  The perspective of the International Osteoporosis Foundation on the official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Ego Seeman; Olof Johnell; Rene Rizzoli; Pierre Delmas
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-02-24       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  The Changing Sensory and Sympathetic Innervation of the Young, Adult and Aging Mouse Femur.

Authors:  Stephane R Chartier; Stefanie A T Mitchell; Lisa A Majuta; Patrick W Mantyh
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2018-02-10       Impact factor: 3.590

3.  Evidence of sustained vertebral and nonvertebral antifracture efficacy with ibandronate therapy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Silvano Adami; Luca Idolazzi; Maurizio Rossini
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 5.346

Review 4.  Cost-effectiveness modeling research of pharmacologic therapy to prevent osteoporosis-related fractures.

Authors:  John T Schousboe
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.592

5.  Estimation of absolute fracture risk among middle-aged and older men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk population cohort study.

Authors:  Alireza Moayyeri; Stephen Kaptoge; Robert N Luben; Nicholas J Wareham; Sheila Bingham; Jonathan Reeve; Kay Tee Khaw
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 8.082

6.  Exuberant sprouting of sensory and sympathetic nerve fibers in nonhealed bone fractures and the generation and maintenance of chronic skeletal pain.

Authors:  Stephane R Chartier; Michelle L Thompson; Geraldine Longo; Michelle N Fealk; Lisa A Majuta; Patrick W Mantyh
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 6.961

7.  Population-based fracture risk assessment and osteoporosis treatment disparities by race and gender.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Curtis; Leslie A McClure; Elizabeth Delzell; Virginia J Howard; Eric Orwoll; Kenneth G Saag; Monika Safford; George Howard
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Association of history of fracture with prehypertension and hypertension: a retrospective case-control study.

Authors:  Shuman Yang; Aimin Chen; Tianying Wu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-04-12       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  The novel pro-osteogenic activity of NUCB2(1-83.).

Authors:  Ruishu Li; Qiong Wu; Yue Zhao; Wenbo Jin; Xinfang Yuan; Xiaopeng Wu; Yanchun Tang; Jing Zhang; Xiangyang Tan; Feng Bi; Jian-Ning Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A bone-resorption surface-targeting nanoparticle to deliver anti-miR214 for osteoporosis therapy.

Authors:  Mingxiang Cai; Li Yang; Shufan Zhang; Jiafan Liu; Yao Sun; Xiaogang Wang
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2017-10-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.