Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness of the Screening for the Primary Prevention of Fragility Hip Fracture in Spain Using FRAX®

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Calcified Tissue International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the primary prevention of fragility hip fractures through opportunistic risk-based screening using FRAX® among women aged 70 to 89 years, and the subsequent treatment with alendronate in women at high-risk, from the Spanish national health system perspective. We performed a discrete-event simulation model. Women were categorized in low, intermediate and high-risk of fragility hip fracture through screening based on the FRAX® risk assessment tool score (Spanish version). Low-risk women received lifestyle recommendations whereas the high-risk group was assigned to alendronate treatment. For women at intermediate-risk, treatment decision was based on a recalculated score considering bone mineral density (BMD). The cost-effectiveness analysis tested six scenarios defined by different FRAX® cut-off values assessing the incremental costs per averted fracture in 20 years. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. We included a random sample of 5146 women obtained from a Spanish cohort of women referred for BMD. The most cost-effective intervention had an Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of 57,390 € per averted hip fracture and consisted of using the FRAX® score without BMD and treating women with a score higher than 5%. The ICER exceeded the acceptability threshold of 25,000 € in all the scenarios. Sensitivity analysis based on time to fracture, treatment efficacy, adherence to treatment and cost of dependence resulted in ICERs ranging from 39,216 € to 254,400 €. An ICER of 24,970 € was obtained when alendronate cost was reduced to 1.13 € per month. The use of FRAX® as screening tool followed by alendronate treatment is not cost-effective in senior women in Spain. Other primary preventions strategies are advisable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanis JA, Borgström F, Compston J, Dreinhöfer K, Nolte E, Jonsson L et al (2013) SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos 8(1–2):144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. González Y, Sicras A, Larraínzar R, Sorio F, Canals L, Lizán L et al (2015) Estimación de los costes sanitarios relacionados con las fracturas osteoporóticas en pacientes posmenopáusicas en España. Pharmacoeconomics Spanish Res Artic 12(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sozen T, Ozisik L, Calik Basaran N (2017) An overview and management of osteoporosis. Eur J Rheumatol 4(1):46–56. http://www.eurjrheumatol.org/sayilar/209/buyuk/46-56.pdf

  4. Blake GM, Fogelman I (2007) The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Postgrad Med J 83(982):509–517

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Nayak S, Edwards DL, Saleh AA, Greenspan SL (2014) Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 25(1):23–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, Borgström F, Ström O, McCloskey E (2009) FRAX® and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44(5):734–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. González-Macías J, Marin F, Vila J, Díez-Pérez A (2012) Probability of fractures predicted by FRAX® and observed incidence in the Spanish ECOSAP study cohort. Bone 50(1):373–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Azagra R, Roca G, Encabo G, Aguyé A, Zwart M, Güell S et al (2012) FRAX® tool, the WHO algorithm to predict osteoporotic fractures: the first analysis of its discriminative and predictive ability in the Spanish FRIDEX cohort. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cordomí CT, del Río LM, Di Gregorio S, Casas L, Estrada MD, Kotzeva A et al (2013) Validation of the FRAX predictive model for major osteoporotic fracture in a historical cohort of Spanish women. J Clin Densitom 16(2):231–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Cooper C, Clarke S, Fong-Soe-Khioe R, Fordham R et al (2017) Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391:741–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden: a report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8(1–2):136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wells G, Cranney A, Peterson J, Boucher M, Shea B, Welch V et al (2011) Alendronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women (Review). Cochrane Libr. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001155.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Silverman SL, Schousboe JT, Gold DT (2011) Oral bisphosphonate compliance and persistence: a matter of choice? Osteoporos Int 22(1):21–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Järvinen TLN, Jokihaara J, Guy P, Alonso-Coello P, Collins GS, Michaëlsson K et al (2014) Conflicts at the heart of the FRAX tool. CMAJ 186(3):165–167

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Turner DA, Khioe RFS, Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Cooper C, Gittoes N et al (2018) The cost-effectiveness of screening in the community to reduce osteoporotic fractures in older women in the UK: economic evaluation of the SCOOP study. J Bone Miner Res 33(5):845–851

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sanfélix-Gimeno G, Hurtado I, Sanfélix-Genovés J, Baixauli-Pérez C, Rodríguez-Bernal CL, Peiró S (2015) Overuse and underuse of antiosteoporotic treatments according to highly influential osteoporosis guidelines: a population-based cross-sectional study in Spain. PLoS ONE 10(8):1–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tebé C, del Río LM, Casas L, Estrada MD, Kotzeva A, Di Gregorio S et al (2011) Factores de riesgo de fracturas por fragilidad en una cohorte de mujeres españolas. Gac Sanit 25(6):507–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Arribas D, Benítez D, Carbonell C, Cebamanos J, del Río L (2010) Guía de Práctica Clínica sobre Osteoporosis y Prevención de Fracturas por Fragilidad. Guías Práctica Clínica En El Sns. 1–263. http://www.guiasalud.es/GPC/GPC_476_Osteoporosis_AIAQS_compl.pdf

  19. Observatorio de Salud de Cataluña. Central de Resultados. Observatorio del Sistema de Salud de Cataluña; 2018. http://observatorisalut.gencat.cat

  20. INEbase (2016) Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística. www.ine.es/inebmenu/indice.htm

  21. Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, Applegate WB, Barrett-Connor E, Musliner TA et al (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures. J Am Med Assoc 280(24):2077–2082

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Landfeldt E, Ström O, Robbins S, Borgström F (2012) Adherence to treatment of primary osteoporosis and its association to fractures-the Swedish adherence register analysis (SARA). Osteoporos Int 23(2):433–443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Severens JL, Milne RJ, Severens H (2004) Discounting health outcomes in economic evaluation: the ongoing debate. Value Health 7(4):397–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Montserrat J, Rodríguez-Cabrero G (2002) Modelos de atención sociosanitaria. Una aproximación a los costes de la dependencia. IMSERSO. p 172. http://envejecimiento.csic.es/documentos/documentos/montserrat-modelos-01.pdf

  25. Ley 39/2006, de 14 de diciembre, de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal y Atención a las personas en situación de dependencia de España

  26. Puig-Junoy J, Oliva-Moreno J, Trapero-Bertrán M, Abellán-Perpiñán JM et al (2014) Guía y recomendaciones para la realización y presentación de evaluaciones económicas y análisis de impacto presupuestario de medicamentos en el ámbito del CatSalut. General Catalunya Dep Salut Serv Català la Salut Barcelona 2014:9–11

    Google Scholar 

  27. Alzahouri K, Bahrami S, Durand-Zaleski I, Guillemin F, Roux C (2013) Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments in postmenopausal women using FRAXTM Thresholds for decision. Jt Bone Spine 80(1):64–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kanis JA, Cooper C, Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Reginster JY, Rizzoli R (2011) Partial adherence: a new perspective on health economic assessment in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 22(10):2565–2573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O, Oden A, Jönsson B (2005) Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis in the UK. Bone 36(1):22–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Marques A, Ferreira RJO, Santos E, Loza E, Carmona L, da Silva JAP (2015) The accuracy of osteoporotic fracture risk prediction tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 74(11):1958–1967. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Järvinen TLN, Michaëlsson K, Aspenberg P, Sievänen H (2015) Osteoporosis: the emperor has no clothes. J Intern Med 277(6):662–673

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lems WF, Raterman HG (2017) Critical issues and current challenges in osteoporosis and fracture prevention. An overview of unmet needs. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 9(12):299–316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Marques A, Lourenço Ó, Ortsäter G, Borgström F, Kanis JA, da Silva JAP (2016) Cost-effectiveness of intervention thresholds for the treatment of osteoporosis based on FRAX® in Portugal. Calcif Tissue Int 99(2):131–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nayak S, Roberts MS, Greenspan SL (2011) Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med 155(11):751–761

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Borgström F, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R (2012) Cost-effective intervention thresholds against osteoporotic fractures based on FRAX® in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int 23(11):2579–2589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zarca K, Durand-Zaleski I, Roux C, Souberbielle JC, Schott AM, Thomas T et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness analysis of hip fracture prevention with vitamin D supplementation: A Markov micro-simulation model applied to the French population over 65 years old without previous hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 25(6):1797–1806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nshimyumukiza L, Durand A, Gagnon M, Douville X, Morin S, Lindsay C et al (2013) An economic evaluation: simulation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of universal prevention strategies against osteoporosis-related fractures. J Bone Miner Res 28(2):383–394

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Yoshimura M, Moriwaki K, Noto S, Takiguchi T (2017) A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategy for postmenopausal Japanese women. Osteoporos Int 28(2):643–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3782-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística. INEbase; 2015. www.ine.es/inebmenu/indice.htm

  40. Pueyo MJ, Larrosa M, Suris X, Garcia-Ruiz AJ (2012) Cost-utility and budget impact analysis of primary prevention with alendronate of osteoporotic hip fractures in Catalonia. Reumatol Clin 8(3):128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reumae.2012.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Xavier Surís and Marta Larrosa from Pla Director de les Malalties Reumàtiques i de l’Aparell Locomotor, and Maria Jesús Pueyo and Josep Fusté from Direcció General de Planificació i Recerca en Salut for their participation in the validation of the model. Luis del Rio and Silvana di Gregorio from CETIR medical centre for providing data. Adolfo Díez-Pérez for the insightful comments and suggestions.

Funding

This research has been produced under the collaboration agreement signed by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, an autonomous body of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and the Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya (AQuAS), under the development of activities of the Spanish Network of Health Technology and Health Services Provision Assessment Agencies of the National Health Service, funded by the Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality in 2012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain

    Mario Martin-Sanchez, Mercè Comas, Margarita Posso, Javier Louro, Laia Domingo & Xavier Castells

  2. Preventive Medicine and Public Health Training Unit PSMAR-UPF-ASPB (Parc de Salut Mar – Pompeu Fabra University-Public Health Agency of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain

    Mario Martin-Sanchez

  3. Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain

    Mercè Comas, Margarita Posso, Javier Louro, Laia Domingo, Xavier Castells & Mireia Espallargues

  4. Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), Barcelona, Spain

    Cristian Tebé

  5. Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya (AQuAS), Barcelona, Spain

    Mireia Espallargues

Authors
  1. Mario Martin-Sanchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mercè Comas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margarita Posso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Javier Louro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laia Domingo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cristian Tebé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xavier Castells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mireia Espallargues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MC and ME designed the study. MM and MP prepared the first draft of the paper. XC, CT and LD contributed to the analytical work. JL and MC were responsible for statistical analysis of the data. All authors revised the paper critically for intellectual content and approved the final version. All authors agree to be accountable for the work and to ensure that any questions relating to the accuracy and integrity of the paper are investigated and properly resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mercè Comas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

MM, MC, MP, JL, LD, CT, XC and ME declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Research based on secondary data, informed consent was not required.

Human and Animal Rights

Research involving humans and/or animals. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 548 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martin-Sanchez, M., Comas, M., Posso, M. et al. Cost-Effectiveness of the Screening for the Primary Prevention of Fragility Hip Fracture in Spain Using FRAX®. Calcif Tissue Int 105, 263–270 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-019-00570-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-019-00570-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation