Dataset Information

A novel economic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-forming agents in the prevention of fractures in patients with osteoporosis.

ABSTRACT: A novel cost-effectiveness model framework was developed to incorporate the elevated fracture risk associated with a recent fracture and to allow sequential osteoporosis therapies to be evaluated. Treating patients with severe osteoporosis after a recent fracture with a bone-forming agent followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared with antiresorptive therapy alone. Incorporating these novel technical attributes in economic evaluations can support appropriate policy and reimbursement decision-making.

Purpose

To develop a cost-effectiveness model accommodating increased fracture risk after a recent fracture and treatment sequencing.

Methods

A micro-simulation cost-utility model was developed to accommodate both treatment sequencing and increased risk with recent fracture. The risk of fracture was estimated and simulated using the FRAX® algorithms combined with Swedish registry data on imminent fracture relative risk. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, a sequential treatment starting with a bone-forming agent for 12 months followed by an antiresorptive agent for 48 months initiated immediately after a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) in a 70-year-old woman with a T-score of 2.5 or less was compared to an antiresorptive treatment alone for 60 months. The model was populated with data relevant for a UK population reflecting a personal social service perspective.

Results

The cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the base-case setting was estimated at £34,584. Sensitivity analyses revealed the sequential treatment to be cost-saving compared with administering a bone-forming treatment alone. Without simulating an elevated fracture risk immediately after a recent fracture, the cost per QALY changed from £34,584 to £62,184.

Conclusion

Incorporating imminent fracture risk in economic evaluations has a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness when evaluating fracture prevention treatments in patients with osteoporosis who sustained a recent fracture. Bone-forming treatment followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared to antiresorptive therapy alone depending on treatment acquisition costs.

SUBMITTER: Soreskog E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8192365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOsteoporosis-associated vertebral fractures represent an increasing clinical and public health problem, one with important socioeconomic effects within western countries. The purpose of this study was to analyse demographic, medical, gender and socioeconomic aspects of osteoporotic vertebral fractures of the thoracic or lumbar spine over a period of at least 10-years.Material and methodsIncluded for analysis were 694 patients who had suffered a vertebral fracture due to primary or secondary osteoporosis, and who were treated at our Level-I trauma center between 2000 and 2013. Collected data included demographic, medical and socioeconomic aspects.ResultsClinical results revealed that 669 patients (96%) were treated conservatively. The remaining 25 patients (4%) underwent surgical therapy: 4 were treated with vertebroplasty, 15 with kyphoplasty and 6 patients with posterior stabilization. The mean age was 75.6 years (range: 50-98), with the vast majority of patients being female (n = 515). A statistically significant demographic difference (i.e., increase) in fractures was observed between the age groups 60-69 and 70-79 (p = 0.041). Concerning socioeconomic aspects, statistical analysis showed that the number of sick leaves and the need for professional domestic help was higher in female patients. Concerning treatment costs, statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences between female and male patients.ConclusionSignificant gender differences-to the detriment of the female population-could be demonstrated within this study. A regrettably low rate of adequate treatment after diagnosis of osteoporosis and its associated fractures-specifically relating to primary and secondary prevention-could also be identified. To prospectively avoid complications and consequential cost increases, more awareness of the necessity for prevention, early diagnosis and adequate treatment of osteoporosis and its related fractures should be considered.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporotic fractures frequently require inpatient care, and are associated with elevated risks of morbidity, mortality, and re-hospitalization. A comprehensive evaluation of healthcare costs, resource utilization, and outcomes associated with osteoporosis (OP)-related fractures treated in US hospitals was undertaken.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the Premier Perspective Database (2010 - 2013) was conducted. Study population comprised patients aged ≥ 50 years hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of a closed or pathologic fracture commonly associated with OP; the first qualifying hospitalization was designated the "index admission". Patients with evidence of major trauma, malignancy, or other non-OP conditions that may lead to pathologic fracture during the index admission were excluded. Study measures included healthcare costs (in 2013 USD), length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, and mortality during the index admission, as well as 60-day fracture-related readmission.ResultsA total of 268,477 patients were admitted to hospital (n = 548 hospitals) with a principal diagnosis of an OP-related fracture; mean (SD) age was 78 (11) years, 75% were female, 69% had ≥ 2 comorbidities, and 82% of patients had a diagnostic code for accidental fall. Among all OP-related fracture admissions, mean (95% CI) hospital cost was $12,839 (12,784-12,893) and LOS was 5.1 (5.1-5.1) days; during the admission, ICU use was 7.4% (7.3-7.5) and mortality was 1.5% (1.5-1.6), and during the 60-day post-discharge period, fracture-related readmission was 2.3% (2.2-2.4).ConclusionsHospital costs associated with the acute treatment of OP-related fractures are substantial, especially among patients with fractures of the hip, femur, and spine. Among patients with vertebral fractures-the second most common reason for admission-mortality and ICU use were notably high, and costs and LOS were higher than among those with non-vertebral fractures (excluding hip). Interventions that are effective in reducing fracture risk have the potential to yield substantial cost savings.

Project description:Introduction. Given the lack of independent analyses comparing numerous pharmacotherapies for osteoporosis, the study objective was to identify the optimal osteoporosis treatment based on a woman's age, fracture history, and ability to tolerate oral bisphosphonates adopting practices recommended in the recently revised Canadian guidelines. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the health care system perspective compared alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, zoledronate, denosumab, and no pharmacotherapy using a Markov model incorporating data on fracture risk and their associated costs, mortality, and disutility and treatment effect. Stratified analysis was conducted based on age, fracture history, and ability to tolerate oral bisphosphonates. Expected lifetime outcomes were obtained through probabilistic analysis with scenario analyses addressing methodological and structural uncertainty. Results. For women able to tolerate oral bisphosphonates, risedronate and etidronate were dominated. Compared to no therapy, alendronate was either dominant or was associated with a low incremental cost per QALY (quality-adjusted life years) gained (ICER)-less than CAN$3,751 based on age and fracture history. In comparison with alendronate, both zoledronate and denosumab were either dominated or associated with a high ICER-greater than CAN$660,000 per QALY. For women unable to tolerate bisphosphonates, dependent on age and fracture history, the ICER for zoledronate versus no therapy ranged from CAN$17,770 to CAN$94,365 per QALY. For all strata, denosumab was dominated by zoledronate or had an ICER greater than CAN$3.0 million. Scenario analyses found consistent findings. Conclusions. Based on a threshold of CAN$50,000 per QALY, alendronate is optimal for osteoporotic women who can tolerate oral bisphosphonates regardless of age or fracture history. For women unable to tolerate oral bisphosphonates, zoledronate is optimal for women with previous fracture or aged 80 to 84 or over 90 with no previous fracture.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.Methods and findingsElectronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.ConclusionsOur review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.

Project description:BackgroundAfter more than 25 years, public health programs have not been able to sufficiently reduce the number of new HIV infections. Over 7,000 people become infected with HIV every day. Lack of convincing evidence of cost-effectiveness (CE) may be one of the reasons why implementation of effective programs is not occurring at sufficient scale. This paper identifies, summarizes and critiques the CE literature related to HIV-prevention interventions in low- and middle-income countries during 2005-2008.MethodsSystematic identification of publications was conducted through several methods: electronic databases, internet search of international organizations and major funding/implementing agencies, and journal browsing. Inclusion criteria included: HIV prevention intervention, year for publication (2005-2008), setting (low- and middle-income countries), and CE estimation (empirical or modeling) using outcomes in terms of cost per HIV infection averted and/or cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) or quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsWe found 21 distinct studies analyzing the CE of HIV-prevention interventions published in the past four years (2005-2008). Seventeen CE studies analyzed biomedical interventions; only a few dealt with behavioral and environmental/structural interventions. Sixteen studies focused on sub-Saharan Africa, and only a handful on Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Many HIV-prevention interventions are very cost effective in absolute terms (using costs per DALY averted), and also in country-specific relative terms (in cost per DALY measured as percentage of GDP per capita).ConclusionThere are several types of interventions for which CE studies are still not available or insufficient, including surveillance, abstinence, school-based education, universal precautions, prevention for positives and most structural interventions. The sparse CE evidence available is not easily comparable; thus, not very useful for decision making. More than 25 years into the AIDS epidemic and billions of dollars of spending later, there is still much work to be done both on costs and effectiveness to adequately inform HIV prevention planning.