Osteoporosis International

, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp 996–1007 | Cite as

The cost-effectiveness of risedronate in the treatment of osteoporosis: an international perspective

  • F. Borgström
  • Å. Carlsson
  • H. Sintonen
  • S. Boonen
  • P. Haentjens
  • R. Burge
  • O. Johnell
  • B. Jönsson
  • J. A. Kanis
Original Article



Risedronate, a bisphosphonate for treatment and prevention of osteoporosis, has been shown in several clinical trials to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost-effectiveness of risedronate treatment has previously been evaluated within different country settings using different model and analysis approaches. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of risedronate in postmenopausal women in four European countries—Sweden, Finland, Spain, and Belgium—by making use of the same modelling framework and analysis setup.


A previously developed Markov cohort model for the evaluation of osteoporosis treatments was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of risedronate treatment. For each country, the model was populated with local mortality, fracture incidence, and cost data. Hip fractures, clinical vertebral fractures, and wrist fractures were included in the model.


The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained from a 5-year intervention with risedronate compared to “no intervention” in 70-year-old women at the threshold of osteoporosis [T-score = −2.5 based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III data] and previous vertebral fracture was estimated to be €860, €19,532, €11,782, and €32,515 in Sweden, Finland, Belgium, and Spain, respectively. Among 70-year-old women at the threshold of osteoporosis without previous fracture the estimated cost per QALY gained ranged from €21,148 (Sweden) to €80,100 (Spain). The differences in cost-effectiveness between countries are mainly explained by different costs (fracture and treatment costs), fracture risks, and discount rates. Based on cost per QALY gained threshold values found in the literature, the study results indicated risedronate to be cost effective in the treatment of elderly women with established osteoporosis in all the included countries.


At a hypothetical threshold value of €40,000 per QALY gained, the results in this study indicate that risedronate is a cost-effective treatment in elderly women at the threshold of osteoporosis (i.e., a T-score of −2.5) with prevalent vertebral fractures in Sweden, Finland, Belgium, and Spain.


Belgium Cost-effectiveness Finland Fracture Osteoporosis Postmenopausal women Risedronate Spain Sweden 


  1. 1.
    Cummings SR, Melton, LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359:1761–1767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Report on Osteoporosis in the European Community - Action for Prevention (1998). European Commission – Employment & Social AffairsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O (2005) Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 16:229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Delmas PD (2002) Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Lancet 359:2018–2026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reginster J, Minne HW, Sorensen OH, Hooper M, Roux C, Brandi ML, Lund B, Ethgen D, Pack S, Roumagnac I, Eastell R (2000) Randomized trial of the effects of risedronate on vertebral fractures in women with established postmenopausal osteoporosis. Vertebral Efficacy with Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. Osteoporos Int 11:83–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK, McKeever CD, Hangartner T, Keller M, Chesnut CH 3rd, Brown J, Eriksen EF, Hoseyni MS, Axelrod DW, Miller PD (1999) Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. JAMA 282:1344–1352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD, Zippel H, Bensen WG, Roux C, Adami S, Fogelman I, Diamond T, Eastell R, Meunier PJ, Reginster JY (2001) Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group. N Engl J Med 344:333–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, Johnell O, Jonsson B (2004) Cost-effectiveness of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 15:862–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N (2003) Economic assessment based on a clinical study of risedronate. Fracture prevention in elderly women with osteoporosis is cost-effective. Lakartidningen 100:36–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iglesias CP, Torgerson DJ, Bearne A, Bose U (2002) The cost utility of bisphosphonate treatment in established osteoporosis. Quart J Med 95:305–311Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hart WM, Rubio-Terres C, Burrell A, Aristegui I, Escobar-Jimenez Y (2002) Análisis farmacoeconómico del tratamiento de la osteoporosis postmenopáusica con risedronato o alendronato. REEMO 11:97–104Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brecht JG, Kruse HP, Felsenberg D, Mohrke W, Oestreich A, Huppertz E (2003) Pharmacoeconomic analysis of osteoporosis treatment with risedronate. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 23:93–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR (1993) Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 13:322–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jonsson B, Christiansen C, Johnell O, Hedbrandt J, Karlsson G (1996) Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in established osteoporosis. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 103:30–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnell O, Jonsson B, Jonsson L, Black D (2003) Cost effectiveness of alendronate (Fosamax) for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of fractures. Pharmacoeconomics 21:305–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jonsson L, Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N (2003) Cost-effectiveness of alendronate treatment of osteoporosis in Denmark. An economic evaluation based on the Fracture Intervention Trial. Ugeskr Laeger 165:4112–4116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 15:352–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanis JA, Dawson A, Oden A, Johnell O, de Laet C, Jonsson B (2001) Cost-effectiveness of preventing hip fracture in the general female population. Osteoporos Int 12:356–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, De Laet C, Oglesby A, Jonsson B (2002) Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis. Bone 31:26–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Jonsson B, Dawson A, Dere W (2000) Risk of hip fracture derived from relative risks: an analysis applied to the population of Sweden. Osteoporos Int 11:120–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tosteson AN, Jonsson B, Grima DT, O’Brien BJ, Black DM, Adachi JD (2001) Challenges for model-based economic evaluations of postmenopausal osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporos Int 12:849–857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Sembo I, Redlund-Johnell I, Dawson A, De Laet C, Jonsson B (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmö. Osteoporos Int 11:669–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Palvanen M, Vuori I, Jarvinen M (1999) Hip fractures in Finland between 1970 and 1997 and predictions for the future. Lancet 353:802–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Federaal Ministerie van Sociale Zaken, Volksgezondheid en Leefmilieu. Bestuur van de gezondheidszorgen. Commissie voor toezicht op en evaluatie van statistische gegevens die verband houden met de medische activiteiten in de ziekenhuizen. Rijksadministratif centrum. Brussel. Upon written requestGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Statistiek NIvd. NIS-Dienst Verspreiding, Leuvenseweg 44, B-1000 Brussel. Upon written requestGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Elffors I, Allander E, Kanis JA, Gullberg B, Johnell O, Dequeker J, Dilsen G, Gennari C, Lopes Vaz AA, Lyritis G et al. (1994) The variable incidence of hip fracture in southern Europe: the MEDOS Study. Osteoporos Int 4:253–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnell O, Gullberg B, Kanis JA (1997) The hospital burden of vertebral fracture in Europe: a study of national register sources. Osteoporos Int 7:138–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. Br Med J 312:1254–1259Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Calvo MS, Harris TB, Heyse SP, Johnston CC Jr, Lindsay R (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA 3rd, Berger M (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15:721–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, Kroger H, McCloskey EV, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35:375–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cranney A, Tugwell P, Adachi J, Weaver B, Zytaruk N, Papaioannou A, Robinson V, Shea B, Wells G, Guyatt G (2002) Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. III. Meta-analysis of risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Rev 23:517–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tonino RP, Meunier PJ, Emkey R, Rodriguez-Portales JA, Menkes CJ, Wasnich RD, Bone HG, Santora AC, Wu M, Desai R, Ross PD (2000) Skeletal benefits of alendronate: 7-year treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Phase III Osteoporosis Treatment Study Group. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:3109–3115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stock JL, Bell NH, Chesnut CH 3rd, Ensrud KE, Genant HK, Harris ST, McClung MR, Singer FR, Yood RA, Pryor-Tillotson S, Wei L, Santora AC 2nd (1997) Increments in bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and hip and suppression of bone turnover are maintained after discontinuation of alendronate in postmenopausal women. Am J Med 103:291–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Watts N, Barton I, Olszynski W, McKeever C, McClung M, Grauer A (2005) Sustained reduction of vertebral fracture risk in the year after discontinuation of risedronate treatment. Osteoporos Int 16:[Abstract s40]Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Statistical Yearbook of Sweden 2004Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Läkemedelsförmånsnämndens allmänna råd (2003). StockholmGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rovira J, Antonanzas F (1995) Economic analysis of health technologies and programmes. A Spanish proposal for methodological standardisation. Pharmacoeconomics 8:245–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    International Society for Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Around The World. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/countrydet.asp?c=7&t=1. Access date: 2005-08-22
  41. 41.
    A proposal for methodological guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals (1995) Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Jonsson B, de Laet C, Dawson A (2001) The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporos Int 12:417–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. Tablas de Mortalidad de la Población de España 1998–1999. http://www.ine.es/inebase/cgi/um?M=%2Ft20%2Fp319%2Fa1998%2F&O=pcaxis&N=&L=1. Access date: 2005-08-22
  44. 44.
    Statistical Yearbook of Finland (2003). Statistics Finland, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scientific Institute of Public Health, Unit of Epidemiology. Overall Mortality: Number of Deaths, Crude Rate (/100000): Belgium 1997: Females. http://www.iph.fgov.be/epidemio/spma. Access date: 2004-04-22
  46. 46.
    Statistical Yearbook of Sweden (2004). Statistics Sweden, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Oden A, Dawson A, Dere W, Johnell O, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (1998) Lifetime risk of hip fractures is underestimated. Osteoporos Int 8:599–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, Sernbo I, Redlund-Johnell I, Petterson C, De Laet C, Jonsson B (2004) Mortality after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:38–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oglesby AK (2003) The components of excess mortality after hip fracture. Bone 32:468–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Parker MJ, Anand JK (1991) What is the true mortality of hip fractures? Public Health 105:443–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, Jacobsen SJ, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ 3rd (1993) Population-based study of survival after osteoporotic fractures. Am J Epidemiol 137:1001–1005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC, Scott JC, Black D (2000) Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int 11:556–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA (1999) Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 353:878–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson D, Borgquist L (1999) Health state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. Eur J Public Health 9:211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kind P, Hardman G, Macron S, UK Population Norms for EQ-5D (1999) Centre for Health Economics, University of York, YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ohinmaa A, Sintonen H (1996) Quality of life of the Finnish population as measured by the EuroQol. Institut Universitari de Salut Publica de Catalunya, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zethraeus N, Borgström F, Johnell O, Kanis J, Jönsson B (2002) Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis related fractures - results from a Swedish survey. Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, 512Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, De Laet C, Jonsson B (2004) The risk and burden of vertebral fractures in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 15:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA (2002) A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporos Int 13:768–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation (1998) Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis and treatment and cost-effective analysis. Osteoporos Int 8(Suppl 4):1–88Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gabriel SE, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ 3rd, Moncur MM, Ettinger B, Tosteson AN (1999) Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should we use? Med Decis Making 19:141–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cranny A, Coyle D, Wells G, Jolly E, Tugwell P (2001) The psychometric properties of patient preferences in osteoporosis. J Rheumatology 28:132–137Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Merlino LA, Bagchi I, Taylor TN, Utrie P, Chrischilles E, Sumner DR, Mudano A, Saag KG (2001) Preferences for fractures and other glucocorticoid-associated adverse events among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Med Decis Making 21:122–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hallberg I, Rosenqvist AM, Kartous L, Lofman O, Wahlstrom O, Toss G (2004) Health-related quality of life after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:834–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Oleksik A, Lips P, Dawson A, Minshall ME, Shen W, Cooper C, Kanis J (2000) Health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women with low BMD with or without prevalent vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 15:1384–1392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tosteson AN, 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 12:1042–1049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hall SE, Criddle RA, Comito TL, Prince RL (1999) A case-control study of quality of life and functional impairment in women with long-standing vertebral osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 9:508–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jonsson B, Christiansen C, Johnell O, Hedbrandt J, Karlsson G (1996) Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in established osteoporosis. Scand J Rheumatol 103(Suppl):30–38; discussion 39–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ekman M, Zethraeus N, Dahlstrom U, Hoglund C (2002) Cost-effectiveness of bisoprolol in chronic heart failure. Lakartidningen 99:646–650PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sacristan JA, Oliva J, Del Llano J, Prieto L, Pinto JL (2002) What is an efficient health technology in Spain? Gac Sanit 16:334–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Raftery J (2001) NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. Br Med J 323:1300–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kanis JA, Jonsson B (2002) Economic evaluation of interventions for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 13:765–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Macroeconomics and Health: investing in health for economic development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (2001) GenevaGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hart W, Rubio-Terres C, Burrell A, Aristegui I, Escobar-Jimenez Y (2002) Análisis farmacoeconómico del tratamiento de la osteoporosis postmenopáusica con risedronato o alendronato. REEMO 11Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Sembo I, Redlund-Johnell I, Dawson A, De Laet C, Jonsson B (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmo. Osteoporos Int 11:669–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Zethraeus N, Stromberg L, Jonsson B, Svensson O, Ohlen G (1997) The cost of a hip fracture. Estimates for 1,709 patients in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 68:13–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sintonen H, Vokkolainen A, Alhava E (2002) Osteoporoottisten lonkkamurtumien taloudelliset ja elämänlaadulliset seuraukset. Stakes Aiheita 34–35Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Autier P, Haentjens P, Bentin J, Baillon JM, Grivegnee AR, Closon MC, Boonen S (2000) Costs induced by hip fractures: a prospective controlled study in Belgium. Belgian Hip Fracture Study Group. Osteoporos Int 11:373–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    StadsledningskontoretsRedovisningsstab (2003) Stockholms stads budgetavräkning 2002. Stadsledningskontorets Redovisningsstab, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hujanen T (2003) Terveydenhuollon yksikkökustannukset Suomessa vuonna 2001 Stakes Aiheita 1/2003, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Belgian Social Security System. http://www.riziv.be/insurer/fr/rate/pdf/2004/doctors/raad-20041001-fr.pdf. Access date: 2005-07-02
  83. 83.
    Honorato J, Gomez-Outes A, Navarro-Quilis A, Martinez-Gonzalez J, Rocha E, Planes A (2004) Pharmacoeconomic analysis of bemiparin and enoxaparin as prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in total knee replacement surgery. Pharmacoeconomics 22:885–894CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    The Swedish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry. http://www.fass.se/LIF/produktfakta/artikel_produkt.jsp?NplID=19991007000217&DocTypeID=7&UserTypeID=2. Access date: 2005-05-06
  85. 85.
  86. 86.
    Centre Belge d´Information Pharmacothérapeutique. http://www.cbip.be/ggr/index.cfm?ggrWelk=/nindex/ggr/stof/IN_R.cfm. Access date: 2005-07-25
  87. 87.
    Base de datos medicamentos. http://pfarmals.portalfarma.com/default.asp. Access date: 2005-07-26
  88. 88.
    Priser för södra sjukvårdsregionen - Vårdtjänster per klinik (2003) Universitetssjukhuset i LundGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Osteoporosis in the European Community: A Call to Action: An audit of policy developments since 1998 (2001) International Osteoporosis FoundationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Borgström
    • 1
    • 2
  • Å. Carlsson
    • 1
  • H. Sintonen
    • 3
  • S. Boonen
    • 4
  • P. Haentjens
    • 5
  • R. Burge
    • 6
    • 7
  • O. Johnell
    • 8
  • B. Jönsson
    • 9
  • J. A. Kanis
    • 10
  1. 1.Stockholm Health EconomicsStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Medical Management CentreKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Public HealthUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Leuven University Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases and Division of Geriatric MedicineKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyAcademisch Ziekenhuis van de Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Procter & Gamble PharmaceuticalsMasonUSA
  7. 7.Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of PharmacyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  8. 8.Department of OrthopaedicsMalmö General HospitalStockholmSweden
  9. 9.Department of EconomicsStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden
  10. 10.Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases (WHO Collaborating Centre)University of Sheffield Medical SchoolSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations