An Economic Evaluation of Quantitative Ultrasonometry as Pre-Screening Test for the Identification of Patients with Osteoporosis
- First Online:
- 10 Downloads
Screening for osteoporosis has been recommended to identify patients at high risk of fracture in order to provide preventative treatment. Given the limited availability of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and health resources, quantitative ultrasonometry (QUS) has emerged as an attractive tool for the mass screening scenario. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a screening strategy using QUS as a pre-screening tool for bone densitometry would be cost effective and, if so, at what cut-off thresholds.
Decision analytic models were used to compare the cost effectiveness and cost utility of several screening strategies: DXA measurement alone and pre-screening strategies that use different QUS index cut-off thresholds. For each strategy, and for hypothetical cohorts of women, we estimated the number of DXA scans required, the number of osteoporotic patients detected and missed, the total screening cost, and the incremental cost per patient detected. A validated Markov microsimulation model with a lifetime horizon and from a healthcare perspective was also computed in order to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of the alternative screening strategies combined with 5 years of alendronate therapy for women who have osteoporosis (T-score -2.5 or less).
The DXA strategy had the highest cost and the highest number of patients with osteoporosis detected. Prescreening strategies using QUS reduced the number of DXA scans per patient with osteoporosis detected and the total screening cost but they also missed patients with osteoporosis as the QUS index decreased. Pre-screening strategies using QUS T-scores of 0.0, −0.5, −2.0, and −2.5 were dominated by extended dominance, as their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were higher than that of the next more effective alternative. The cost-effectiveness and cost-utility frontiers included no screening, pre-screening using QUS T-scores of −1.0 and −1.5, and DXA measurement alone.
These results suggest that QUS may be useful as a pre-screening tool for bone densitometry given the limited availability of DXA and health resources, and that the QUS index T-scores of −1.0 and −1.5 are the most appropriate index.
- 1.US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 526–8Google Scholar
- 3.National Osteoporosis Foundation. Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Washington, DC: NOF, 2008Google Scholar
- 17.Marin F, Lopez-Bastida J, Diez-Perez A, et al. Bone mineral density referral for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry using quantitative ultrasound as a prescreening tool in postmenopausal women from the general population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Calcif Tissue Int 2004; 74: 277–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Hiligsmann M, Ethgen O, Bruyère O, et al. Development and validation of a Markov microsimulation model for the economic evaluation of treatments in osteoporosis. Value Health. In press.Google Scholar
- 22.Cleemput I, Crott R, Vrijens F, et al. Recommandations provisoires pour les évaluations pharmaco-économiques en Belgique. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) [KCE reports 78B (D/2008/10.273/24)]. Bruxelles: Centre Fédéral d’Expertise des Soins de Santé (KCE), 2008Google Scholar
- 34.Directorate-general Statistics and Economic Information. Mortality tables 2004 and 2002–2004. Brussels: FPS Economy, 2006Google Scholar
- 43.Silverman SL, Minshall ME, Shen W, et al. The relationship of health-related quality of life to prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation Study. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 2611–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.SMEs, independent professions and energy, labour force survey. Brussels: FPS Economy, 2004Google Scholar
- 52.Directorate-general Statistics and Economic Information. Structure and distribution of earnings survey. Brussels: FPS Economy, 2007Google Scholar
- 57.Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005Google Scholar
- 58.Langten CM, Ballard PA, Langton DK, et al. Maximising the cost effectiveness of BMD referral for DXA using ultrasound as a selective population pre-screen. Technol Health Care 1997; 5: 235–41Google Scholar
- 59.Langten CM, Langton DK, Beardsworth SA. Comparison of accuracy and cost effectiveness of clinical criteria and BUA for referral for BMD assessment by DXA in osteoporotic and osteopenic perimenopausal subjects. Technol Health Care 1999; 7: 319–30Google Scholar