Literature DB >> 18292976

Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective.

A N A Tosteson1, L J Melton, B Dawson-Hughes, S Baim, M J Favus, S Khosla, R L Lindsay.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: A United States-specific cost-effectiveness analysis, which incorporated the cost and health consequences of clinical fractures of the hip, spine, forearm, shoulder, rib, pelvis and lower leg, was undertaken to identify the 10-year hip fracture probability required for osteoporosis treatment to be cost-effective for cohorts defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. A 3% 10-year risk of hip fracture was generally required for osteoporosis treatment to cost less than $60,000 per QALY gained.
INTRODUCTION: Rapid growth of the elderly United States population will result in so many at risk of osteoporosis that economically efficient approaches to osteoporosis care warrant consideration.
METHODS: A Markov-cohort model of annual United States age-specific incidence of clinical hip, spine, forearm, shoulder, rib, pelvis and lower leg fractures, costs (2005 US dollars), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment ($600/yr drug cost for 5 years with 35% fracture reduction) by gender and race/ethnicity groups. To determine the 10-year hip fracture probability at which treatment became cost-effective, average annual age-specific probabilities for all fractures were multiplied by a relative risk (RR) that was systematically varied from 0 to 10 until a cost of $60,000 per QALY gained was observed for treatment relative to no intervention.
RESULTS: Osteoporosis treatment was cost-effective when the 10-year hip fracture probability reached approximately 3%. Although the RR at which treatment became cost-effective varied markedly between genders and by race/ethnicity, the absolute 10-year hip fracture probability at which intervention became cost-effective was similar across race/ethnicity groups, but tended to be slightly higher for men than for women.
CONCLUSIONS: Application of the WHO risk prediction algorithm to identify individuals with a 3% 10-year hip fracture probability may facilitate efficient osteoporosis treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18292976      PMCID: PMC2729707          DOI: 10.1007/s00198-007-0550-6

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


  37 in total

1.  Cost-utility analyses of clinical preventive services: published ratios, 1976-1997.

Authors:  P W Stone; S Teutsch; R H Chapman; C Bell; S J Goldie; P J Neumann
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Challenges for model-based economic evaluations of postmenopausal osteoporosis interventions.

Authors:  A N Tosteson; B Jönsson; D T Grima; B J O'Brien; D M Black; J D Adachi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Deaths: final data for 2001.

Authors:  Elizabeth Arias; Robert N Anderson; Hsiang-Ching Kung; Sherry L Murphy; Kenneth D Kochanek
Journal:  Natl Vital Stat Rep       Date:  2003-09-18

4.  A new approach to the development of assessment guidelines for osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; D Black; C Cooper; P Dargent; B Dawson-Hughes; C De Laet; P Delmas; J Eisman; O Johnell; B Jonsson; L Melton; A Oden; S Papapoulos; H Pols; R Rizzoli; A Silman; A Tenenhouse
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Direct medical costs attributable to osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  S E Gabriel; A N A Tosteson; C L Leibson; C S Crowson; G R Pond; C S Hammond; L J Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 6.  Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  Steven R Cummings; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-05-18       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. II. Meta-analysis of alendronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Ann Cranney; George Wells; Andrew Willan; Lauren Griffith; Nicole Zytaruk; Vivian Robinson; Dennis Black; Jonathan Adachi; Beverley Shea; Peter Tugwell; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 19.871

8.  Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA.

Authors:  B Dawson-Hughes; A N A Tosteson; L J Melton; S Baim; M J Favus; S Khosla; R L Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-02-22       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Colles fracture, spine fracture, and subsequent risk of hip fracture in men and women. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Patrick Haentjens; Philippe Autier; John Collins; Brigitte Velkeniers; Dirk Vanderschueren; Steven Boonen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Adverse outcomes of osteoporotic fractures in the general population.

Authors:  L Joseph Melton
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.741

View more
  134 in total

1.  Efficacy and safety of bazedoxifene in postmenopausal Asian women.

Authors:  L Xu; K-S Tsai; G S Kim; Y Wu; P Vincendon; A A Chines; G D Constantine
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Type 2 diabetes and bone fractures.

Authors:  Kendall F Moseley
Journal:  Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.243

Review 3.  Development and use of FRAX in osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; E V McCloskey; H Johansson; A Oden; O Ström; F Borgström
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary.

Authors:  Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  New osteoporosis guidelines for Canada.

Authors:  John A Kanis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Health state utility values and patient-reported outcomes before and after vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in an osteoporosis clinical trial.

Authors:  T Imai; S Tanaka; K Kawakami; T Miyazaki; H Hagino; M Shiraki
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Economic evaluation of osteoporosis liaison service for secondary fracture prevention in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with previous hip fracture in Japan.

Authors:  K Moriwaki; S Noto
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Should there be a fracas over FRAX and other fracture prediction tools?: Comment on "A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women".

Authors:  Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Kenneth W Lyles
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-14

9.  A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better?

Authors:  Kristine E Ensrud; Li-Yung Lui; Brent C Taylor; John T Schousboe; Meghan G Donaldson; Howard A Fink; Jane A Cauley; Teresa A Hillier; Warren S Browner; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-14

Review 10.  Clinical update on teriparatide.

Authors:  Elizabeth File; Chad Deal
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.592

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.