Abstract
Simulations play an increasingly important role in the evaluation of osteoporosis interventions. Existing evaluations have been based on “reduced-form” cohort simulations that do not reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of osteoporosis and its outcomes. Such simplified models offer parsimony and ease of use, but they also are limited in their ability to explain and extrapolate outcomes in a way that is most useful for both clinical and health policy decision makers. Alternatively, evaluations could be based on “structural” microsimulations, which explicitly model the underlying biology of osteoporosis at the individual level. The structural approach presents technical challenges, including the need to obtain more-detailed data and the requirement that underlying biological models be validated. However, evaluations based on structural microsimulation may ultimately provide substantially more useful information, resulting in improved decision making.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapy (2000) NIH Consensus Statement 27–29 March 2000 17:1–36
Kanis JA, Jonsson B (2002) Economic evaluation of interventions for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 13:765–767
Zethraeus N, Ben Sedrine W, Caulin F, Corcaud S, Gathon HJ, Haim M, Johnell O, Jonsson B, Kanis JA, Tsouderos Y, Reginster JY (2002) Models for assessing the cost-effectiveness of the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 13:841–857
Clemen RT (1996) Making hard decisions: an introduction to decision analysis, 2nd edn. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA
Koopmans TC (1949) Identification problems in economic model construction. Econometrica 17:125–144
Zethraeus N, Johannesson M, Jonsson B (1999) A computer model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of hormone replacement therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 15:352–365
Tosteson ANA, Rosenthal DI, Melton LJ 3rd, Weinstein MC (1990) Cost effectiveness of screening perimenopausal white women for osteoporosis: bone densitometry and hormone replacement therapy. Ann Internal Med 113:594–603
Cranney A, Coyle D, Welch V, Lee KM, Tugwell P (1999) A review of economic evaluation in osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res 12:425–434
Heaney RP (1998) Bone mass, bone fragility, and the decision to treat. JAMA 280:2119–2120
Turner CH (2002) Biomechanics of bone: determinants of skeletal fragility and bone quality. Osteoporos Int 13:97–104
Leibson CL, Tosteson ANA, Gabriel SE, Ransom JE, Melton LJ (2002) Mortality, disability, and nursing home use for persons with and without hip fracture: a population-based study. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:1644–1650
Ray NF, Chan JK, Thamer M, Melton LJ 3rd (1997) Medical expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic fractures in the United States in 1995: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. J Bone Miner Res 12:24–35
Gabriel SE, Tosteson ANA, Leibson CL, Crowson CS, Pond GR, Hammond CS, Melton LJ 3rd (2002) Direct medical costs attributable to osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 13:323–330
Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA (2002) A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporos Int 13:768–776
Tosteson ANA, Gabriel SE, Grove MR, Moncur MM, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ 3rd (2001) Impact of hip and vertebral fractures on quality-adjusted life years. Osteoporos Int 12:1042–1049
Hayes WC, Myers ER, Robinovitch SN, Van Den Kroonenberg A, Courtney AC, McMahon TA (1996) Etiology and prevention of age-related hip fractures. Bone 18:77S-86S
Robinovitch SN, Hsiao ET, Sandler R, Cortez J, Liu Q, Paiement GD (2000) Prevention of falls and fall-related fractures through biomechanics. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 28:74–79
Daley MJ, Spinks WL (2000) Exercise, mobility and aging. Sports Med 29:1–12
Gregg EW, Pereira MA, Caspersen CJ (2000) Physical activity, falls, and fractures among older adults: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:883–893
Myers ER, Wilson SE (1997) Biomechanics of osteoporosis and vertebral fracture. Spine 22:25S-31S
Grabiner MD, Pavol MJ, Owings TM (2002) Can fall-related hip fractures be prevented by characterizing the biomechanical mechanisms of failed recovery? Endocr J 17:15–20
Seeman E (2003) Reduced bone formation and increased bone resorption: rational targets for the treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 14 [Suppl 3]:S2–S8
Riggs BL, Khosla S, Melton LJ 3rd (2002) Sex steroids and the construction and conservation of the adult skeleton. Endocr Rev 23:279–302
Frost HM (1966) Bone dynamics in metabolic bone disease. J Bone Joint Surg 48:1192–1203
Banks J, Carson JS 2nd, Nelson BL, Nicol DM (2000) Discrete-event system simulation, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Parmigiani G (2002) Modeling in medical decision making: a Bayesian approach. John Wiley & Sons, New York
Claxton K (1999) Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ 8:269–274
Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd (2002) Bone turnover matters: the raloxifene treatment paradox of dramatic decreases in vertebral fractures without commensurate increases in bone density. J Bone Miner Res 17:11–14
Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, Applegate WB, Barrett-Connor E, Musliner TA, Palermo L, Prineas R, Rubin SM, Scott JC, Vogt T, Wallace R, Yates AJ, LaCroix AZ (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 280:2077–2082
Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Harris F, Genant HK, Ensrud K, LaCroix AZ, Black DM (2002) Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs. Am J Med 112:281–289
Delmas PD, Ensrud KE, Adachi JD, Harper KD, Sarkar S, Gennari C, Reginster JY, Pols HA, Recker RR, Harris ST, Wu W, Genant HK, Black DM, Eastell R (2002) Mulitple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation investigators, efficacy of raloxifene on vertebral fracture risk reduction in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: 4-year results from a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:3609–3617
McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD, Zippel H, Bensen WG, Roux C, Adami S, Fogelman I, Diamond T, Eastell R, Meunier PJ, Reginster JY, Hip Intervention Program Study Group (2001) Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. N Engl J Med 344:333–340
Black DM, Greenspan SL, Ensrud KE (2003) The effects of parathyroid hormone and alendronate alone or in combination in postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 349:1207–1215
Finkelstein JS, Hayes A, Hunzelman JL, Wyland JJ, Lee H, Neer RM (2003) Effects of parathyroid hormone, alendronate, or both in men with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 349:1216–1226
Khosla S (2003) Parathyroid hormone plys alendronate—a combination that does not add up. N Engl J Med 349:1277–1279
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Dawson A (2002) Ten-year risk of osteoporotic fracture and the effect of risk factors on screening strategies. Bone 30:251–258
J Mullahy (2001) Live long, live well: quantifying the health of heterogeneous populations. Health Econ 10:429–440
Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, Prince RL, Sheldon TA, Szucs T, Vray M (1997) Modeling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 6:217–227
Kling A, Barao F, Nakagawa M, Tavora L, Vaz P (eds) (2001) Advanced Monte Carlo for radiation physics, particle transport simulation and applications. Springer, Heidelberg Berlin New York
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Loretta Pearson, Mary Roberts and Deb Fogarty for assistance with the preparation of the manuscript. We also thank the constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers. This work was supported by a grant (AG12262) that is co-funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the U.S. Public Health Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vanness, D.J., Tosteson, A.N.A., Gabriel, S.E. et al. The need for microsimulation to evaluate osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporos Int 16, 353–358 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1826-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1826-8