Richard H Lee1, Thomas Weber, Cathleen Colón-Emeric. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA. r.lee@duke.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of population screening for vitamin D insufficiency with that of universal vitamin D supplementation in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: A Markov decision model simulating follow-up over a 36-month period. Published data were used to estimate values for the model, including costs (measured in 2011 U.S. dollars), utilities (measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)), and probabilities. SETTING: Decision analysis simulation from a societal perspective. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of community-dwelling women and men aged 65 to 80. MEASUREMENTS: Net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated by subtracting the incremental cost of the strategy from the product of incremental QALYs and willingness-to-pay threshold. A higher NMB indicates greater cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In women aged 65 to 80, population screening was slightly more cost-effective than universal supplementation, with an incremental NMB of $224 compared with $189 (P < .001). Population screening in men was also more cost-effective than universal supplementation (incremental NMB $298 vs $260, P < .001). Results differed according to age group. In those aged 65, population screening had cost-effectiveness similar to that of universal supplementation in women ($59 vs $71) and men ($114 vs $120), whereas in those aged 80, population screening was substantially more cost-effective than universal supplementation in women ($563 vs $428) and men ($703 vs $571). CONCLUSION: Population screening and universal supplementation for vitamin D insufficiency are cost-effective strategies in community-dwelling older women and men. In the oldest old, population screening may be more cost-effective than universal supplementation.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of population screening for vitamin Dinsufficiency with that of universal vitamin D supplementation in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: A Markov decision model simulating follow-up over a 36-month period. Published data were used to estimate values for the model, including costs (measured in 2011 U.S. dollars), utilities (measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)), and probabilities. SETTING: Decision analysis simulation from a societal perspective. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of community-dwelling women and men aged 65 to 80. MEASUREMENTS: Net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated by subtracting the incremental cost of the strategy from the product of incremental QALYs and willingness-to-pay threshold. A higher NMB indicates greater cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In women aged 65 to 80, population screening was slightly more cost-effective than universal supplementation, with an incremental NMB of $224 compared with $189 (P < .001). Population screening in men was also more cost-effective than universal supplementation (incremental NMB $298 vs $260, P < .001). Results differed according to age group. In those aged 65, population screening had cost-effectiveness similar to that of universal supplementation in women ($59 vs $71) and men ($114 vs $120), whereas in those aged 80, population screening was substantially more cost-effective than universal supplementation in women ($563 vs $428) and men ($703 vs $571). CONCLUSION: Population screening and universal supplementation for vitamin Dinsufficiency are cost-effective strategies in community-dwelling older women and men. In the oldest old, population screening may be more cost-effective than universal supplementation.
Authors: Bahman S Roudsari; Beth E Ebel; Phaedra S Corso; Noelle-Angelique M Molinari; Thomas D Koepsell Journal: Injury Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Janel Hanmer; William F Lawrence; John P Anderson; Robert M Kaplan; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Kerry E Broe; Tai C Chen; Janice Weinberg; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Michael F Holick; Douglas P Kiel Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: R W Sattin; D A Lambert Huber; C A DeVito; J G Rodriguez; A Ros; S Bacchelli; J A Stevens; R J Waxweiler Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Suhaib Js Ahmad; Ahmed R Ahmed; Jafer Ali; George Macfaul; Matt W Johnson; Aristomenis K Exadaktylos; Rami Archid; Sami Ahmad; Mohammad Rostami-Nejad; Hamid Mohaghegh-Shalmani; Ravi Madhotra; Kamran Rostami Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench Date: 2020
Authors: K Zarca; I Durand-Zaleski; C Roux; J-C Souberbielle; A-M Schott; T Thomas; P Fardellone; C-L Benhamou Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 4.507