Literature DB >> 26751984

Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening Strategies for Men.

Smita Nayak1, Susan L Greenspan2.   

Abstract

Osteoporosis affects many men, with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the best osteoporosis screening strategies for men are unknown. We developed an individual-level state-transition cost-effectiveness model with a lifetime time horizon to identify the cost-effectiveness of different osteoporosis screening strategies for US men involving various screening tests (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA]; the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool [OST]; or a fracture risk assessment strategy using age, femoral neck bone mineral density [BMD], and Vertebral Fracture Assessment [VFA]); screening initiation ages (50, 60, 70, or 80 years); and repeat screening intervals (5 years or 10 years). In base-case analysis, no screening was a less effective option than all other strategies evaluated; furthermore, no screening was more expensive than all strategies that involved screening with DXA or the OST risk assessment instrument, and thus no screening was "dominated" by screening with DXA or OST at all evaluated screening initiation ages and repeat screening intervals. Screening strategies that most frequently appeared as most cost-effective in base-case analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses when assuming willingness-to-pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $100,000/QALY included screening initiation at age 50 years with the fracture risk assessment strategy and repeat screening every 10 years; screening initiation at age 50 years with fracture risk assessment and repeat screening every 5 years; and screening initiation at age 50 years with DXA and repeat screening every 5 years. In conclusion, expansion of osteoporosis screening for US men to initiate routine screening at age 50 or 60 years would be expected to be effective and of good value for improving health outcomes. A fracture risk assessment strategy using variables of age, femoral neck BMD, and VFA is likely to be the most effective of the evaluated strategies within accepted cost-effectiveness parameters. DXA and OST are also reasonable screening options, albeit likely slightly less effective than the evaluated fracture risk assessment strategy.
© 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FRACTURE PREVENTION; FRACTURE RISK ASSESSMENT; HEALTH ECONOMICS; OSTEOPOROSIS; SCREENING

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26751984      PMCID: PMC4891297          DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.2784

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  52 in total

1.  American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

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

2.  Natural history of pain in patients with conservatively treated osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: results from VERTOS II.

Authors:  A Venmans; C A Klazen; P N M Lohle; W P Mali; W J van Rooij
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  Screening for osteoporosis in the adult U.S. population: ACPM position statement on preventive practice.

Authors:  Lionel S Lim; Laura J Hoeksema; Kevin Sherin
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Health care utilization and expenditures in the United States: a study of osteoporosis-related fractures.

Authors:  Lucinda Strycker Orsini; Matthew D Rousculp; Stacey R Long; Shaohung Wang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 7.  A systematic review of osteoporosis medication adherence and osteoporosis-related fracture costs in men.

Authors:  Yeshi Mikyas; Irene Agodoa; Nicole Yurgin
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.561

8.  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

9.  Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis.

Authors:  F Cosman; S J de Beur; M S LeBoff; E M Lewiecki; B Tanner; S Randall; R Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Updated fracture incidence rates for the US version of FRAX.

Authors:  B Ettinger; D M Black; B Dawson-Hughes; A R Pressman; L J Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 4.507

View more
  12 in total

1.  A comparison of electronic and manual fracture risk assessment tools in screening elderly male US veterans at risk for osteoporosis.

Authors:  S T Williams; P T Lawrence; K L Miller; J L Crook; J LaFleur; G W Cannon; R E Nelson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-07-30       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening Using Biomechanical Computed Tomography for Patients With a Previous Abdominal CT.

Authors:  Maria Pisu; David L Kopperdahl; Cora E Lewis; Kenneth G Saag; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2019-03-24       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Limited Osteoporosis Screening Effectiveness Due to Low Treatment Rates in a National Sample of Older Men.

Authors:  Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Carl F Pieper; Courtney H Van Houtven; Janet M Grubber; Kenneth W Lyles; Joanne Lafleur; Robert A Adler
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 4.  Osteoporosis: a discussion on the past 5 years.

Authors:  Kyle M Schweser; Brett D Crist
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

Review 5.  Bone health in ageing men.

Authors:  Karel David; Nick Narinx; Leen Antonio; Pieter Evenepoel; Frank Claessens; Brigitte Decallonne; Dirk Vanderschueren
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 9.306

6.  A modification and validation of quantitative morphometry classification system for osteoporotic vertebral compressive fractures in mainland Chinese.

Authors:  L-J Song; L-L Wang; L Ning; S-W Fan; X Zhao; Y-L Chen; Z-Z Li; Z-A Hu
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening strategies for hip fracture prevention in older Chinese people: a decision tree modeling study in the Mr. OS and Ms. OS cohort in Hong Kong.

Authors:  Y Su; F T T Lai; B H K Yip; J C S Leung; T C Y Kwok
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Cost-effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention for Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Smita Nayak; Andrea Singer; Susan L Greenspan
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 7.538

Review 9.  Pharmacological Therapy of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Current Review of Literature.

Authors:  Vito Pavone; Gianluca Testa; Serena M C Giardina; Andrea Vescio; Domenico A Restivo; Giuseppe Sessa
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 5.810

Review 10.  Biomechanical Computed Tomography analysis (BCT) for clinical assessment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  T M Keaveny; B L Clarke; F Cosman; E S Orwoll; E S Siris; S Khosla; M L Bouxsein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-04-26       Impact factor: 5.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.