Skip header and navigation

1 records – page 1 of 1.

An economic evaluation: Simulation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of universal prevention strategies against osteoporosis-related fractures.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature120571
Source
J Bone Miner Res. 2013 Feb;28(2):383-94
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2013
Author
Léon Nshimyumukiza
Audrey Durand
Mathieu Gagnon
Xavier Douville
Suzanne Morin
Carmen Lindsay
Julie Duplantie
Christian Gagné
Sonia Jean
Yves Giguère
Sylvie Dodin
François Rousseau
Daniel Reinharz
Author Affiliation
Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Source
J Bone Miner Res. 2013 Feb;28(2):383-94
Date
Feb-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Canada
Computer simulation
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Decision Support Techniques
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
Osteoporosis - complications - economics
Osteoporotic Fractures - complications - economics - prevention & control - therapy
Abstract
A patient-level Markov decision model was used to simulate a virtual cohort of 500,000 women 40 years old and over, in relation to osteoporosis-related hip, clinical vertebral, and wrist bone fractures events. Sixteen different screening options of three main scenario groups were compared: (1) the status quo (no specific national prevention program); (2) a universal primary prevention program; and (3) a universal screening and treatment program based on the 10-year absolute risk of fracture. The outcomes measured were total directs costs from the perspective of the public health care system, number of fractures, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results show that an option consisting of a program promoting physical activity and treatment if a fracture occurs is the most cost-effective (CE) (cost/fracture averted) alternative and also the only cost saving one, especially for women 40 to 64 years old. In women who are 65 years and over, bone mineral density (BMD)-based screening and treatment based on the 10-year absolute fracture risk calculated using a Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool is the best next alternative. In terms of cost-utility (CU), results were similar. For women less than 65 years old, a program promoting physical activity emerged as cost-saving but BMD-based screening with pharmacological treatment also emerged as an interesting alternative. In conclusion, a program promoting physical activity is the most CE and CU option for women 40 to 64 years old. BMD screening and pharmacological treatment might be considered a reasonable alternative for women 65 years old and over because at a healthcare capacity of $50,000 Canadian dollars ($CAD) for each additional fracture averted or for one QALY gained its probabilities of cost-effectiveness compared to the program promoting physical activity are 63% and 75%, respectively, which could be considered socially acceptable. Consideration of the indirect costs could change these findings.
Notes
Cites: J Rheumatol. 2001 Jan;28(1):132-711196515
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2011 Jun;22(6):1873-8320967422
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(4):271-811420776
Cites: Health Econ. 2001 Oct;10(7):675-8011747050
Cites: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Winter;18(1):94-11111987445
Cites: Lancet. 2002 May 18;359(9319):1761-712049882
Cites: CMAJ. 2002 Nov 12;167(10 Suppl):S1-3412427685
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2004 May;15(5):361-614730421
Cites: CMAJ. 2004 May 25;170(11):1665-715159360
Cites: BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2004 Apr 6;5:1115068488
Cites: J Bone Miner Res. 1992 Sep;7(9):1005-101414493
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 1998;8 Suppl 4:S7-8010197173
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 1999;9(1):29-3710367027
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(1):85-9010501785
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2004 Dec;15(12):1003-815167989
Cites: Health Technol Assess. 2005 Jun;9(22):1-16015929857
Cites: J Rheumatol. 2005 Dec;32(12):2393-916331770
Cites: J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006 Feb;28(2 Suppl 1):S95-11216626523
Cites: Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Jul;22(7):1425-3616834841
Cites: Rheumatol Int. 2006 Oct;26(12):1063-7216953395
Cites: Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2006 Dec;4(4):148-5217112425
Cites: Clin Genet. 2007 Jan;71(1):46-5817204047
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2007 Mar;18(3):261-7017086470
Cites: Bone. 2007 May;40(5):1299-30717307038
Cites: Lancet. 2007 Aug 25;370(9588):657-6617720017
Cites: CMAJ. 2007 Sep 11;177(6):575-8017846439
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2008 Jan;19(1):79-8617641811
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2008 Apr;19(4):437-4718292976
Cites: Evid Based Nurs. 2008 Oct;11(4):99-10218815315
Cites: Ann Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;18(11):827-3518809340
Cites: Arch Intern Med. 2009 Jan 12;169(1):25-3119139320
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2009 Mar;20(3):363-7018633665
Cites: Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2008;6(2-3):113-3519231905
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2009 May;20(5):703-1418802659
Cites: Value Health. 2009 Jun;12 Suppl 2:S14-919523180
Cites: CMAJ. 2009 Sep 1;181(5):265-7119654194
Cites: Health Technol Assess. 2009 Sep;13(45):iii-xi, 1-13419818211
Cites: CMAJ. 2009 Nov 24;181(11):815-2019841053
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2010 Jun;21 Suppl 2:S407-1320464374
Cites: Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1106-1719706151
Cites: CMAJ. 2010 Nov 23;182(17):1864-7320940232
Cites: Arch Intern Med. 2001 May 28;161(10):1309-1211371259
PubMed ID
22991210 View in PubMed
Less detail