Literature DB >> 22147714

Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Smita Nayak1, Mark S Roberts, Susan L Greenspan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The best strategies to screen postmenopausal women for osteoporosis are not clear.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the cost-effectiveness of various screening strategies.
DESIGN: Individual-level state-transition cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. women aged 55 years or older. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Payer. INTERVENTION: Screening strategies composed of alternative tests (central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], calcaneal quantitative ultrasonography [QUS], and the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation [SCORE] tool) initiation ages, treatment thresholds, and rescreening intervals. Oral bisphosphonate treatment was assumed, with a base-case adherence rate of 50% and a 5-year on/off treatment pattern. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2010 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: At all evaluated ages, screening was superior to not screening. In general, quality-adjusted life-days gained with screening tended to increase with age. At all initiation ages, the best strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than $50,000 per QALY was DXA screening with a T-score threshold of -2.5 or less for treatment and with follow-up screening every 5 years. Across screening initiation ages, the best strategy with an ICER less than $50,000 per QALY was initiation of screening at age 55 years by using DXA -2.5 with rescreening every 5 years. The best strategy with an ICER less than $100,000 per QALY was initiation of screening at age 55 years by using DXA with a T-score threshold of -2.0 or less for treatment and then rescreening every 10 years. No other strategy that involved treatment of women with osteopenia had an ICER less than $100,000 per QALY. Many other strategies, including strategies with SCORE or QUS prescreening, were also cost-effective, and in general the differences in effectiveness and costs between evaluated strategies was small. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis did not reveal a consistently superior strategy. LIMITATIONS: Data were primarily from white women. Screening initiation at ages younger than 55 years were not examined. Only osteoporotic fractures of the hip, vertebrae, and wrist were modeled.
CONCLUSION: Many strategies for postmenopausal osteoporosis screening are effective and cost-effective, including strategies involving screening initiation at age 55 years. No strategy substantially outperforms another. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Research Resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22147714      PMCID: PMC3318923          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00007

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


  53 in total

Review 1.  Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis and treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis. Introduction.

Authors: 
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: executive summary of recommendations.

Authors:  Nelson B Watts; John P Bilezikian; Pauline M Camacho; Susan L Greenspan; Steven T Harris; Stephen F Hodgson; Michael Kleerekoper; Marjorie M Luckey; Michael R McClung; Rachel Pessah Pollack; Steven M Petak
Journal:  Endocr Pract       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.443

Review 3.  Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  M C Weinstein; J E Siegel; M R Gold; M S Kamlet; L B Russell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025.

Authors:  Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Economic comparison of diagnostic approaches for evaluating osteoporosis in older women.

Authors:  Dale F Kraemer; Heidi D Nelson; Douglas C Bauer; Mark Helfand
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-05-12       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Compliance with osteoporosis medications.

Authors:  Daniel H Solomon; Jerry Avorn; Jeffrey N Katz; Joel S Finkelstein; Marilyn Arnold; Jennifer M Polinski; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-11-14

7.  Classification of osteoporosis based on bone mineral densities.

Authors:  Y Lu; H K Genant; J Shepherd; S Zhao; A Mathur; T P Fuerst; S R Cummings
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  Mortality after osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  O Johnell; J A Kanis; A Odén; I Sernbo; I Redlund-Johnell; C Petterson; C De Laet; B Jönsson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-10-30       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Effect of oral alendronate on bone mineral density and the incidence of fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The Alendronate Phase III Osteoporosis Treatment Study Group.

Authors:  U A Liberman; S R Weiss; J Bröll; H W Minne; H Quan; N H Bell; J Rodriguez-Portales; R W Downs; J Dequeker; M Favus
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-11-30       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Fracture risk associated with continuation versus discontinuation of bisphosphonates after 5 years of therapy in patients with primary osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lisa-Ann Fraser; Kelly N Vogt; Jonathan D Adachi; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 2.423

View more
  36 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.  Osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women: how and when?

Authors: 
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2012-04-04

3.  Cost-effectiveness of Virtual Bone Strength Testing in Osteoporosis Screening Programs for Postmenopausal Women in the United States.

Authors:  Christoph A Agten; Austin J Ramme; Stella Kang; Stephen Honig; Gregory Chang
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density.

Authors:  S Nayak; D L Edwards; A A Saleh; S L Greenspan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Osteoporosis prevention, screening, and treatment: a review.

Authors:  Juliana M Kling; Bart L Clarke; Nicole P Sandhu
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2014-04-25       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Screening for and treatment of osteoporosis: construction and validation of a state-transition microsimulation cost-effectiveness model.

Authors:  L Si; T M Winzenberg; Q Jiang; A J Palmer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening Strategies for Men.

Authors:  Smita Nayak; Susan L Greenspan
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategy for postmenopausal Japanese women.

Authors:  M Yoshimura; K Moriwaki; S Noto; T Takiguchi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women referred to an Italian center for osteoporosis: a single day experience in Messina.

Authors:  Antonino Catalano; Nancy Morabito; Giorgio Basile; Sergio Fusco; Graziella Castagna; Francesca Reitano; Raffaella Ciano Albanese; Antonino Lasco
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2013-09

10.  Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; B Dustin Pooler; Travis Lauder; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Richard J Bruce; Neil Binkley
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.