Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 404–411 | Cite as

The burden-of-illness study on osteoporosis in the Slovenian female population

  • Biljana Dzajkovska
  • Albert I. Wertheimer
  • Ales Mrhar
Original Paper

Abstract

Study objective

This burden-of-illness study on osteoporosis was performed with the main goal to estimate the economic implications of osteoporosis for the Slovenian healthcare system.

Methods

A variety of sources was used to quantify the utilization of resources in 2003, and the appropriate unit costs were assigned to the identified resources.

Main outcome measures

The study included all direct and indirect costs that arise from treatment of osteoporosis and consequent hip, spine and wrist fractures in total Slovene postmenopausal population in 2003.

Results

We estimated the total burden of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Slovenia for 2003 to be over SIT 7.55 billion (approximately €31.5 million); among that, 45% or SIT 3.39 billion (€14.2 million) belong to drug expenditures for osteoporosis treatment and prevention; 29% or SIT 2.2 billion (€9.2 million) include indirect costs for osteoporosis morbidity and mortality, and 26% or SIT 1.95 billion (€8.1 million) belong to direct costs for treatment, hospitalization, and rehabilitation of osteoporotic fractures. Total costs on osteoporotic fractures were however subject to an approximation due to the expert panel-based estimate of proportion of osteoporosis-caused fractures and the limited data on resource utilization for fracture treatment.

Conclusion

Osteoporosis is a costly disease with a significant burden to society and needs to be viewed as an important problem with a complex long-term impact.

Keywords

Bone fractures  Burden-of-illness  Costs Economics Health policy  Osteoporosis Slovenia 

References

  1. 1.
    WHO Study Group. Assessment of Fracture Risk and its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis (1994) World Health Organization Technical Report Series 843:5–6Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sedrine W, Radican L, Reginster J-Y On conducting burden-of-osteoporosis studies: a review of the core concepts and practical issues. A study carried out under the auspices of a WHO Collaborating Center. Rheumatology 2001;40:7–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morrison A, Wertheimer AI Types of Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation. In: Morrison A, Wertheimer AI, editors. Pharmacoeconomics. A primer for the pharmaceutical industry. Philadelphia: Temple University; 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation Status Report. Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis and treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis. Osteoporosis International 1998; 8(S4):S1–S88Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ray N, Chan J, Thamer M et al. Medical expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic fractures in the United States in 1995: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 1997;12(1):24–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Max W, Sinnot P, Kao C et al. The burden of osteoporosis in California, 1998. Osteoporosis International 2002;13:493–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dolan P, Torgerson DJ The cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the United Kingdom female population. Osteoporosis International 1998;8:611–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lane A Direct costs of osteoporosis for New Zealand women. PharmacoEconomics 1996;9(3):231–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosner A, Grima D, Torrance G et al. Cost effectiveness of multi-therapy treatment strategies in the prevention of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;14(5):559–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    IVZ. Ambulantno predpisovanje zdravil v Sloveniji po ATC klasifikaciji v letu; 2003. Available via <http://www.ivz.si>Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inštitut za varovanje zdravja Republike Slovenije: Zdravstveni statistični letopis; 2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Melton III L, Thamer M, Ray N et al. Fractures attributable to osteoporosis: report from the national osteoporosis foundation. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 1997;12(1):16–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    http://www.zzzs.si Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferk J Osteoporotični zlomi kolka, zapestja in hrbteničnega vretenca ter stroški zdravljenja Zdravniški Vestnik 2002;71:41–44Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koopmanschap AM, Rutten FH A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. PharmacoEconomics 1996;10(5):460–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    www.gov.si/zrs/Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    http://www.stat.siGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Laet C, Van Hout B, Burger H et al Incremental cost of medical care after hip fracture and first vertebral fracture: The Rotterdam study. Osteoporosis International 1999;10(1):66–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L Hip fracture prevention. Cost-effective strategies. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19(5Pt1):449–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kanis J, Oden A, Johnell O et al The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporosis International 2001;12:417–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ankjaer-Jensen A, Johnell O Prevention of osteoporosis: cost-effectiveness of different pharmaceutical treatments. Osteoporosis International 1996;6:265–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Biljana Dzajkovska
    • 1
    • 2
  • Albert I. Wertheimer
    • 3
  • Ales Mrhar
    • 2
  1. 1.Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.LondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Biopharmaceutics and PharmacokineticsFaculty of PharmacyLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Center for Pharmaceutical Health Services ResearchTemple University School of PharmacyPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations