Literature DB >> 2119161

Cost effectiveness of screening perimenopausal white women for osteoporosis: bone densitometry and hormone replacement therapy.

A N Tosteson1, D I Rosenthal, L J Melton, M C Weinstein.   

Abstract

Bone mass measurement at menopause to identify and selectively prescribe hormone replacement therapy for women at high risk for fractures has seen limited clinical use. We used epidemiologic, clinical, and economic data in a decision-analytic model to compare the following clinical strategies for perimenopausal, asymptomatic, white women with intact uteri: no intervention; bone mineral density measurement followed by selective, long-term (15-year) estrogen-progestin therapy in women with low bone mass; and unselective, universal hormone replacement therapy. Life expectancy and direct medical cost per patient were estimated for each strategy. Strategies for screening and treating women with perimenopausal bone mineral density less than 0.9 g/cm2 or less than 1.0 g/cm2 would cost $11,700 or $22,100, respectively, per year of additional life gained. If the cost of screening is less than $84, then resource savings from hip fractures prevented would be more than the cost of screening and treatment. Universal treatment without screening would prevent additional fatal fractures but would expose many more women to the adverse effects of hormone replacement therapy and would cost an additional $349,000 per year of life gained compared with the screening strategies. When quality of life was considered, screening was found to be cost effective over a wide range of assumptions. The choice between universal treatment and screening depends on the risks (breast cancer), perceived side effects (menstrual bleeding), and benefits (prevention of ischemic heart disease) of estrogen-progestin therapy. We conclude that screening asymptomatic, perimenopausal white women to detect low bone mass and to target hormone replacement therapy at women who are at the greatest risk for fracture is a reasonably cost-effective use of health care resources. However, cost-effective screening guidelines cannot be explicitly established until further data addressing the association between bone mass measurements in the hip and hip fracture risk are available.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2119161     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-8-594

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  42 in total

Review 1.  Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application.

Authors:  M Sculpher; E Fenwick; K Claxton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models.

Authors:  C McCabe; S Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Osteoporosis: clinical features, prevention, and treatment.

Authors:  L A Fleming
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1992 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Economics notes: Converting international cost effectiveness data to UK prices.

Authors:  Toby B Gosden; David J Torgerson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-08-03

Review 5.  Superiority of age and weight as variables in predicting osteoporosis in postmenopausal white women.

Authors:  Manfred Wildner; Andrea Peters; Vibhavendra S Raghuvanshi; Jörg Hohnloser; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-09-16       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 6.  Population screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures.

Authors:  T A Sheldon; N Freemantle; S Ibbotson; C Pollock; J Mason; A F Long
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1992-03

7.  Direct clinical and welfare costs of osteoporotic fractures in elderly men and women.

Authors:  A Randell; P N Sambrook; T V Nguyen; H Lapsley; G Jones; P J Kelly; J A Eisman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 8.  Economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: a structured review of the literature.

Authors:  Rachael L Fleurence; Cynthia P Iglesias; David J Torgerson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-06-25       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  The need for microsimulation to evaluate osteoporosis interventions.

Authors:  David J Vanness; Anna N A Tosteson; Sherine E Gabriel; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-01-11       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Validation of a decision model for preventive pharmacological strategies in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Sylvie Perreault; Carey Levinton; Claudine Laurier; Yola Moride; Louis-Georges Ste-Marie; Ralph Crott
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.