Literature DB >> 18774866

Cost effectiveness of screen-and-treat strategies for low bone mineral density: how do we screen, who do we screen and who do we treat?

John T Schousboe1.   

Abstract

Bone densitometry is currently widely recommended for, and considered central to, identifying post-menopausal women and older men at high risk of fracture and establishing an indication for pharmacological fracture-prevention therapy. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively review cost-effectiveness modelling studies published to date of bone mass measurement technologies (primarily dual energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]) designed to identify those individuals at sufficiently high risk of fracture to warrant pharmacological fracture-prevention therapy.Based on older paradigms of the pharmacological treatment of those with a bone density value below a specific threshold, bone densitometry appears to be cost effective for post-menopausal women aged > or =65 years, regardless of the presence or absence of other clinical risk factors. For younger post-menopausal women, bone densitometry is likely to be cost effective only for those with specific clinical risk factors, such as prior fracture or low bodyweight. For older men, bone densitometry may be cost effective for those who have had a prior fracture and/or are aged > or =80 years, but the subset of men for whom bone densitometry is likely to be cost effective may vary from country to country depending on societal willingness to pay for health benefits, fracture rates in the population and the costs of bone densitometry and drug treatment. The cost effectiveness of other technologies such as heel ultrasound, peripheral DXA and quantitative CT remains uncertain.However, in the context of the new WHO paradigm of directing treatment based on absolute fracture risk rather than bone density, a new generation of cost-effectiveness modelling studies will be required to define the most cost-effective way bone densitometry can be used to identify those who are likely to benefit sufficiently from pharmacological fracture-prevention therapies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18774866     DOI: 10.2165/00148365-200806010-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  6 in total

1.  Bone density testing intervals and common sense.

Authors:  E Michael Lewiecki; Neil Binkley
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 5.096

2.  Bisphosphonate therapy: when not to monitor BMD.

Authors:  Umang Sharma; James J Stevermer
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 0.493

3.  Hip fracture prevention with a multifactorial educational program in elderly community-dwelling Finnish women.

Authors:  T Pekkarinen; E Löyttyniemi; M Välimäki
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Combined Measures of Dynamic Bone Quality and Postural Balance--A Fracture Risk Assessment Approach in Osteoporosis.

Authors:  Amit Bhattacharya; Nelson B Watts; Alok Dwivedi; Rakesh Shukla; Ashutosh Mani; Dima Diab
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 2.617

5.  Estimation of the lifetime risk of hip fracture for women and men in Canada.

Authors:  R B Hopkins; E Pullenayegum; R Goeree; J D Adachi; A Papaioannou; W D Leslie; J E Tarride; L Thabane
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 6.  Health technology assessment in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Mickael Hiligsmann; John A Kanis; Juliet Compston; Cyrus Cooper; Bruno Flamion; Pierre Bergmann; Jean-Jacques Body; Steven Boonen; Olivier Bruyere; Jean-Pierre Devogelaer; Stefan Goemaere; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Serge Rozenberg; Jean-Yves Reginster
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 4.333

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.