, Volume 32, Issue 8, pp 735–743 | Cite as

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions for Osteoporosis: Issues to Consider

  • Matt D. StevensonEmail author
  • Peter L. Selby
Practical Application


Expenditure on treating osteoporotic fractures and on preventative intervention is considerable and is likely to rise in forthcoming years due to the association between fracture risk and age. With funders such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee explicitly considering cost-effectiveness analyses within the process of producing guidance, it is imperative that economic models are as robust as possible. This article details issues that need to be considered specifically related to health technology assessments of interventions for osteoporosis, and highlights limitations within the current evidence base. A likely direction of impact on cost effectiveness of addressing the key issues has been included alongside a tentative categorization of the level of these impacts. It is likely that cost-effectiveness ratios presented in previous models that did not address the identified issues were favourable to interventions.


Bone Mineral Density Vertebral Fracture Alendronate Risedronate Strontium Ranelate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Conflict of interest

Professor Stevenson has received grants from the National Institute for Health Research to undertake health technology assessments within the disease area of osteoporosis. The department in which Professor Selby works has received research support from Amgen, who manufacture drugs for the treatment of osteoporosis, but he has received no personal financial support.


  1. 1.
    Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med. 2003;94:646–50.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO Technical Report Series No. 843. Geneva: WHO; 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 1994;9:1137–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torgerson DJ, Dolan P. The cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the United Kingdom female population—the author replies. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:551–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burge RT, Worley D, Johansen A, Bhattacharyya S, Bose U. The cost of osteoporotic fractures in the UK: projections for 2000–2020. J Med Econ. 2001;4:51–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weyler E, Gandjour A. Socioeconomic burden of hip fractures in Germany. Gesundheitswesen. 2007;69(11):601–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blume SW, Curtis JR. Medical costs of osteoporosis in the elderly Medicare population. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(6):1835–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stevenson M, Lloyd Jones M, Papaioannou D. Vitamin K to prevent fractures in older women: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(45):1–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singer BR, McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, Christie J. Epidemiology of fractures in 15,000 adults: the influence of age and gender. J Bone Joint Surg. 1998;80:243–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Müller D, Pulm J, Gandjour A. Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting and treating individuals at increased risk of osteoporosis or osteopenia: a systematic review. Value Health. 2012;15:284–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–158.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Panichkul S, Panichkul P, Sritara C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of various screening methods for osteoporosis in perimenopausal Thai women. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006;62:89–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stevenson M, Davis S, Lloyd-Jones M, Beverley C. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    TA160. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. Accessed Oct 2013.
  15. 15.
    TA161. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. Accessed Oct 2013.
  16. 16.
    Schousboe JT, Taylor BC, Fink HA, Kane RL, Cummings SR, Orwoll ES, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry followed by treatment of osteoporosis in older men. JAMA. 2007;298(6):629–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA III, Berger M. Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:721–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanis JA, Brazier J, Stevenson M, Lloyd-Jones M, Calvert NW. Treatment of established osteoporosis. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(29):1–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stevenson MD, Oakley J, Chilcott JB. Gaussian process modelling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modelling. A case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of osteoporosis. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:89–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, Briggs A, Akehurst R, Buxton M, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14:339–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Process and methods guides. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Accessed Oct 2013.
  22. 22.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Odén A, Sernbo I, Redlund-Johnell I, Petterson C, et al. Fracture risk following an osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:175–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanis JA, Adams J, Borgström F, Cooper C, Jönsson B, Preedy D, et al. The cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the management of osteoporosis. Bone. 2008;42(1):4–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stevenson M. The population of health economic models is critical. Bone. 2008;43:214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1994;843:1–129.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schousboe JT, Gourlay M, Fink HA, Taylor BC, Orwoll ES, Barrett-Connor E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry among Caucasian women and men without a prior fracture according to age and body weight. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(1):163–77.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    FRAX®. WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool. Accessed Oct 2013.
  28. 28.
    Stevenson M. Assessing the feasibility of transforming the recommendation in TA160, TA161 and TA204 into absolute 10-year risk of fracture. Accessed Oct 2013.
  29. 29.
    Black DM, Schwartz AV, Ensrud KE, et al. Effects of stopping or continuing alendronate after 5 years of treatment. JAMA. 2006;296(24):2927–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected values of sample information calculation in medical decision making. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:207–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stevenson MD, Oakley JE, Lloyd Jones M, Brennan A, Compston JE, McCloskey EV, Selby PL. The cost-effectiveness of an RCT to establish whether 5 or 10 years of bisphosphonate treatment is the better duration for women with a prior fracture. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(6):678–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shane E, Burr D, Abrahamsen B, Adler RA, Brown TD, Cheung AM, Cosman F, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29:1–23. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hiligsmann M, McGowan B, Bennett K, Barry M, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of poor adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications in Ireland. Value Health. 2012;15(5):604–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ. Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed care population. Bone. 2006;38:922–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ. 1996;312:1254–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cranney A, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Wells G, Tugwell P, Rosen C, et al. Summary of meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Rev. 2002;23(4):570–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ades AE, Cliffe S. Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation of a multi-parameter decision model: consistency of evidence and the accurate assessment of uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:359–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cummings SR, Black DM, Applegate WB, Barrett-Connor E, Musliner TA, et al. Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA. 1998;280(24):2077–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McClung MR, Miller GP, Zippel H, Bensen WG, Roux C, Adami S. Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(5):333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McClung MR, Boonen S, Törring O, Roux C, Rizzoli R, Bone HG, et al. Effect of denosumab treatment on the risk of fractures in subgroups of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. JBMR. 2012;27(1):211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Borgström F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O, et al. Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in Sweden. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:637–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oden A, Dawson A, Dere W, Johnell O, Jonsson B, Kanis J. Lifetime risk of hip fractures is underestimated. Osteoporos Int. 1998;8:599–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meyer HE, Tverdal A, Falch JA, Pederden JI. Factors associated with mortality after hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:228–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Poor G, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ III. Determinants of reduced survival following hip fractures in men. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:260–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA. Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet. 1999;353:878–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC, Scott JC, Black D. Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:556–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jalava T, Sama S, Pylkkanen L, Mawer B, Kanis JA, Selby P, et al. Association between vertebral fracture and increased mortality in osteoporotic patients. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18:1254–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B. Excess mortality after hospitalisation for vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:108–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Felli JC, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:95–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schwarz P, Jorgensen NR, Mosekilde L, Vestergaard P. The evidence for efficacy of osteoporosis treatment in men with primary osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of antiresorptive and anabolic treatment in men. J Osteoporos. 2011;2011:259818. doi: 10.4061/2011/259818.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related ResearchSheffieldUK
  2. 2.University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations