Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions for Osteoporosis: Issues to Consider
- 307 Downloads
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.
KeywordsBone Mineral Density Vertebral Fracture Alendronate Risedronate Strontium Ranelate
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.Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med. 2003;94:646–50.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 14.TA160. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA160/. Accessed Oct 2013.
- 15.TA161. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA161/. Accessed Oct 2013.
- 21.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Process and methods guides. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/D45/1E/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2013.pdf. Accessed Oct 2013.
- 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
- 27.FRAX®. WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool. http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/. Accessed Oct 2013.
- 28.Stevenson M. Assessing the feasibility of transforming the recommendation in TA160, TA161 and TA204 into absolute 10-year risk of fracture. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11746/65031/65031.pdf. Accessed Oct 2013.
- 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.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
- 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