Literature DB >> 17039393

Which screening strategy using BMD measurements would be most cost effective for hip fracture prevention in elderly women? A decision analysis based on a Markov model.

A M Schott1, C Ganne, D Hans, G Monnier, R Gauchoux, M A Krieg, P D Delmas, P J Meunier, C Colin.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are responsible for excessive mortality, decreasing the 5-year survival rate by about 20%. From an economic perspective, they represent a major source of expense, with direct costs in hospitalization, rehabilitation, and institutionalization. The incidence rate sharply increases after the age of 70, but it can be reduced in women aged 70-80 years by therapeutic interventions. Recent analyses suggest that the most efficient strategy is to implement such interventions in women at the age of 70 years. As several guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) screening of postmenopausal women with clinical risk factors, our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies applied to elderly women aged 70 years and older.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision-tree analysis and a Markov model. Two alternative strategies, one measuring BMD of all women, and one measuring BMD only of those having at least one risk factor, were compared with the reference strategy "no screening". Cost-effectiveness ratios were measured as cost per year gained without hip fracture. Most probabilities were based on data observed in EPIDOS, SEMOF and OFELY cohorts.
RESULTS: In this model, which is mostly based on observed data, the strategy "screen all" was more cost effective than "screen women at risk." For one woman screened at the age of 70 and followed for 10 years, the incremental (additional) cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies compared with the reference was 4,235 euros and 8,290 euros, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The results of this model, under the assumptions described in the paper, suggest that in women aged 70-80 years, screening all women with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) would be more effective than no screening or screening only women with at least one risk factor. Cost-effectiveness studies based on decision-analysis trees maybe useful tools for helping decision makers, and further models based on different assumptions should be performed to improve the level of evidence on cost-effectiveness ratios of the usual screening strategies for osteoporosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17039393     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-006-0227-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  49 in total

1.  Effect and offset of effect of treatments for hip fracture on health outcomes.

Authors:  B Jonsson; J Kanis; A Dawson; A Oden; O Johnell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies.

Authors:  Niklas Zethraeus; Magnus Johannesson; Bengt Jönsson; Mickael Löthgren; Magnus Tambour
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Screening for osteoporosis using easily obtainable biometrical data: diagnostic accuracy of measured, self-reported and recalled BMI, and related costs of bone mineral density measurements.

Authors:  D J van der Voort; S Brandon; G J Dinant; J W van Wersch
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Factors associated with mortality after hip fracture.

Authors:  H E Meyer; A Tverdal; J A Falch; J I Pedersen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Multinational, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of the effects of alendronate on bone density and fracture risk in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: results of the FOSIT study. Fosamax International Trial Study Group.

Authors:  H A Pols; D Felsenberg; D A Hanley; J Stepán; M Muñoz-Torres; T J Wilkin; G Qin-sheng; A M Galich; K Vandormael; A J Yates; B Stych
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Discordance between changes in bone mineral density measured at different skeletal sites in perimenopausal women--implications for assessment of bone loss and response to therapy: The Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study.

Authors:  B Abrahamsen; L S Stilgren; A P Hermann; C L Tofteng; O Bärenholdt; P Vestergaard; C Brot; S P Nielsen
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Cost analysis of osteoporosis related to untreated menopause.

Authors:  E Levy
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 2.980

10.  The Canadian SCORE questionnaire: optimizing the use of technology for low bone density assessment. Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimate.

Authors:  W J Ungar; R Josse; S Lee; N Ryan; R Adachi; D Hanley; J Brown; M C Breton
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Bone Density Screening and Re-screening in Postmenopausal Women and Older Men.

Authors:  Margaret L Gourlay; Robert A Overman; Kristine E Ensrud
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.096

2.  Comment on Schott et al.: which screening strategy using BMD measurements would be most cost effective for hip fracture prevention in elderly women? A decision analysis based on a Markov model.

Authors:  B Abrahamsen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-03-03       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Accounting for increased non-target-disease-specific mortality in decision-analytic screening models for economic evaluation.

Authors:  Björn Stollenwerk; Afschin Gandjour; Markus Lüngen; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-12-30

4.  Validation of a 5-year risk score of hip fracture in postmenopausal women. The Danish Nurse Cohort Study.

Authors:  Y A Hundrup; R K Jacobsen; A H Andreasen; M Davidsen; E B Obel; B Abrahamsen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Protocol for the models of primary osteoporosis screening in men (MOPS) cluster randomized trial.

Authors:  Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Richard Lee; Carl F Pieper; Kenneth W Lyles; Leah L Zullig; Richard E Nelson; Katina Robinson; Ivuoma Igwe; Jyotsna Jadhav; Robert A Adler
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 2.261

6.  Intervals between bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in clinical practice.

Authors:  H Lyu; K Yoshida; S K Tedeschi; S Zhao; C Xu; S U Nigwekar; B Z Leder; D H Solomon
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening strategies for hip fracture prevention in older Chinese people: a decision tree modeling study in the Mr. OS and Ms. OS cohort in Hong Kong.

Authors:  Y Su; F T T Lai; B H K Yip; J C S Leung; T C Y Kwok
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Utilization of bone mineral density testing among breast cancer survivors in British Columbia, Canada.

Authors:  O L Tseng; M G Dawes; J J Spinelli; C C Gotay; M L McBride
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 4.507

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.