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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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