Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 259–273 | Cite as

Cost effectiveness of secondary vs tertiary prevention for post-menopausal osteoporosis

Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

The aging of the population is likely to increase the number of osteoporosis-related fractures, such as hip fractures, and hence the economic burden for society. Therefore, strategies to identify women at increased risk are of major interest.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of preventive services for osteoporosis, comparing secondary plus tertiary prevention (SP/TP) versus tertiary prevention (TP) alone in post-menopausal women in Germany.

Methods

A cost-utility analysis and a budget-impact analysis were performed from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). A Markov model simulated costs and benefits discounted at 3% over a lifetime horizon.

Results

Cost effectiveness of TP compared with no screening was €669, €477 and €385 per QALY for women aged 60, 70 and 80 years, respectively (year 2010 values). In women aged 50 years, TP dominated no prevention. Cost effectiveness of SP/TP compared with TP was €4543, €19 791, €8670 and €3368 for women aged 50, 60, 70 and 80 years, respectively. SP/TP resulted in additional costs of €109 million or 0.10% of the SHI’s annual budget (TP alone = €8 million).

Conclusion

Compared with TP, a strategy based on SP/TP appears to be more expensive but more effective in each age group. Given that cost effectiveness seems acceptable, allocation of resources to SP/TP to decrease post-menopausal osteoporotic fracture risk may be justified.

Supplementary material

40258_2012_9040259_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (90 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 92 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    WHO. Prevention and management of osteoporosis: report of a WHO Scientific Group. WHO technical report series, no. 921 [online]. Available from URL: http://apps.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp?sesslan=1&codlan=1&codcol=10&codcch=921 [Accesed 2010 Aug 2]
  2. 2.
    Dolan P, Torgerson DJ. The cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the United Kingdom female population. Osteoporos Int 1998; 8(6): 611–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, et al. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 2007 Mar; 22(3): 465–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dequeker J. Strategies for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis at the primary, secondary, and tertiary level in Leuven, Belgium. Clin Calcium 2001 Apr; 11(4): 477–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    German osteology umbrella organization DVO. Prophylaxe, Diagnostik und Therapie der Osteoporose. S3-Leitlinie des Dachverbandes der deutschsprachigen wissenschaftlichen osteologischen Gesellschaften (2006) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dv-osteologie.org/dvo_leitlinien/dvo-leitlinie-2009 [Accessed 2010 Feb 20]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Osteoporosis Foundation. NOF’s clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nof.org/professionals/clinical-guidelines [Accessed 2011 May 14]
  7. 7.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Osteoporosis: secondary prevention. The clinical effectiveness of technologies for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. London: NICE, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=byID&o=11550 [Accessed 2010 Jun 11]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lühmann D, Kohlmann T, Raspe H. Use of bone densitometry in the framework of prevention and therapy of osteoporosis: example of a systematic evaluation (health technology assessment). Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2000 Aug; 94(6): 475–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Federal Joint Commitee (GBA). Osteodensitometrie. Zusammenfassender Bericht des Arbeitsausschusses „Ärztliche Behandlung” des Bundesausschusses der Ärzte und Krankenkassen über die Beratungen des Jahres 1999 zur Bewertung der Osteodensitometrie gemäß §135 Abs. 1 SGB V (2000) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.g-ba.de/institution/sys/suche/?search-query=densitometrie [Accessed 2010 Apr 9]Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mueller D, Weyler E, Gandjour A. Cost effectiveness of the German screen-and-treat strategy for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(6): 513–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller D, Gandjour A. Cost-effectiveness of using clinical risk factors with and without DXA for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women. Value Health 2009 Nov; 12(8): 1106–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanis JA, Adams J, Borgström F, et al. The cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the management of osteoporosis. Bone 2008 Jan; 42(1): 4–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jansen JP, Gaugris S, Bergman G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a fixed dose combination of alendronate and cholecalciferol in the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Curr Med Res Opin 2008 Mar; 24(3): 671–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds. Statutory health insurance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/GKV_was_ist_das.gkvnet [Accessed 2011 May 14]
  15. 15.
    Zentralinstitut für Kassenärztliche Versorgung. ZI_ADT-Panel Nordrhein, Patienten-/Praxisstichprobe: IV/2005online]. Available from URL: http://www.zi-berlin.de/cms/projekte/adt-panel/ [Accessed 2011 May 14]
  16. 16.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996 Oct 16; 276(15): 1253–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Federal Statistical Office Germany (DESTATIS). Consumer price index for Germany (2007) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Navigation/Statistiken/Preise/Verbraucherpreise/Verbraucherpreise,templateId=renderPrint.psml_nnn=true [Accessed 2009 Dec 12]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zethraeus N, Borgström F, Ström O, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis: a review of the literature and a reference model. Osteoporos Int 2007;18: 9–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Felsenberg D, Silman AJ, Lunt M, et al. Incidence of vertebral fracture in Europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 2002; 17: 716–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Federal Statistical Office Germany (DESTATIS). Diagnosedaten der Krankenhauspatientinnen u. patienten (einschl. Sterbe- u. Stundenfälle) Fachserie 12 Reihe 6.2.1 (2003) [online]. Available from URL: https://www-ec.destatis.de/csp/shop/sfg/bpm.html.cms.cBroker.cls?cmspath=struktur,vollanzeige.csp&ID=1023509 [Accessed 2009 Dec 8]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singer BR, McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, et al. Epidemiology of fractures in 15 000 adults: the influence of age and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 243–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Browner WS, Seeley DG, Vogt TM, et al. Non-trauma mortality in elderly women with low bone mineral density. Lancet 1991; 338: 355–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D, et al. Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 1999; 353: 872–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kado DM, Browner WS, Palermo L, et al. Vertebral fractures and mortality in older women. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 1215–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Center JR, Bliuc D, Nguyen TV, et al. Risk of subsequent fracture after low-trauma fracture in men and women. JAMA 2007; 297: 387–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA. A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporosis Int 2002; 13: 768–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A. The risk and burden of vertebral fractures in Sweden. Osteoporosis Int 2004; 15: 20–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gandjour A, Weyler EJ. Cost-effectiveness of referrals to high-volume hospitals: an analysis based on a probabilistic Markov model for hip fracture surgeries. Health Care Manage Sci 2006; 9: 359–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stevenson M, Jones ML, De Nigris E, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Melton LJ, Thamer M, Ray NF, et al. Fractures attributable to osteoporosis: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. J Bone Miner Res 1997; 12: 16–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bartl R, Götte S, Hadji P, et al. Adherence with daily and weekly administration of oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2006; 131: 1257–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. Ten-year risk of osteoporotic fracture and the effect of risk factors on screening strategies. Bone 2002; 30: 251–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Laet CE, Van Hout BA, Burger H, et al. Hip fracture prediction in elderly men and women: validation in the Rotterdam study. J Bone Miner Res 1998 Oct; 13(10): 1587–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Durosier C, Hans D, Krieg MA, et al. Defining risk thresholds for a 10-year probability of hip fracture model that combines clinical risk factors and quantitative ultrasound: results using the EPISEM cohort. J Clin Densitom 2008 Jul–Sep; 11(3): 397–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, et al. Under-diagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 2005; 557–63Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    De Laet C., Oden A, Johansson H, et al. The impact of the use of multiple risk indicators for fracture on case-fnding strategies: a mathematical approach. Osteoporosis Int 2005; 16: 313–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM, et al. Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res 1992; 7: 221–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Federal Statistical Office Germany (DESTATIS). Osteoporosis. Health Report Germany 1998 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gbe-bund.de/gbe10/abrechnung.prc_abr_test_logon?p_uid=gasts&p_aid=&p_knoten=FID&p_sprache=D&p_suchstring=914::Krankheitskosten [Accessed 2010 April 20]Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Köster I, Ihle P, Schubert I. Chronic lumbal pain: prevalence and incidence based on data from the statutory health insurance. J Public Health 2005; 13(Suppl. 1): S89Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung. Uniform value scale (2006) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ebm2000plus.de/EBMGesamt.htm [Accessed 2009 Dec 11]
  41. 41.
    German red list (2006) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rote-liste.de [Accessed 2009 Dec 11]
  42. 42.
    Physio.de Informationsdienste GmbH. Catalogue of non-physician treatments (2004) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.heilmittelkatalog.de [Accessed 2009 Dec 19]Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Physio.de Informationsdienste GmbH. Price lists (2004) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.physio.de/preislisten/index.php?mode=0&PHPSESSID=188e9d915ddd0df45f16ab93237473fe [Accessed 2009 Jan 19]Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus (InEK). Fallpauschalen-Katalog (2006) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.g-drg.de/cms/index.php/inek_site_de/Archiv/Systemjahr_2006_bzw._Datenjahr_2004#sm2 [Accessed 2009 Jan 28]Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus (InEK). Abschlussbericht zur Weiterentwicklung des G-DRG-Systems für das Jahr 2004. Klassifikation, Katalog und Bewertungsrelationen. Band II: Fallpauschalenkatalog, klinische Profile, Kostenprofile [online]. Available from URL: http://www.g-drg.de/cms/index.php/inek_site_de/Archiv/Systemjahr_2004_bzw._Datenjahr_2002#sm7 [Accessed 2009 Jan 28]
  46. 46.
    Federal Statistical Office Germany (DESTATIS). Krankheitskosten 2002, 2004 und 2006 [online]. Available from URL: https://www-ec.destatis.de/csp/shop/sfg/bpm.html.cms.cBroker.cls?cmspath=struktur,vollanzeige.csp&ID=1022498 [Accessed 2008 Oct 7]
  47. 47.
    Tosteson ANA, Jönsson B, Grima DT, et al. Challenges for model-based economic evaluations of post-menopausal osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporosis Int 2001; 12: 849–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cramer JA, Roy A, Burrel A, et al. Medication compliance and persistence: terminology and definitions. Value Health 2008; 11:44–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tidermark J, Zethraeus N, Svensson O, et al. Femoral neck fractures in the elderly: functional outcome and quality of life according to EuroQol. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 473–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrance of osteoporotic fractures. Br Med J 1996; 312: 1254–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
  52. 52.
    Federal Statistical Office Germany (DESTATIS). Health in Germany [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gbe-bund.de/gbe10/owards.prc_show_pdf?p_id=9965&p_sprache=E&p_uid=gastd&p_aid=68474622&p_lfd_nr=1 [Accessed 2009 Jan 14]
  53. 53.
    Gandjour A, Stock S. A national hypertension treatment program in Germany and its estimated impact on costs, life expectancy, and cost-effectiveness. Health Policy 2007; 83(2–3): 257–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Häussler B, Gothe H, Göl D, et al. Epidemiology, treatment and costs of osteoporosis in Germany: the BoneEVA Study. Osteoporos Int 2007 Jan; 18(1): 77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Brookhart MA, Avorn J, Katz JN, et al. Gaps in treatment among users of osteoporosis medications: the dynamics of noncompliance. Am J Med 2007 Mar; 120(3): 251–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Myers TA, Briffa NK. Secondary and tertiary prevention in the management of low-trauma fracture. Aust J Physiother 2003; 49(1): 25–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hajcsar EE, Hawker G, Bogoch ER. Investigation and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with fragility fractures. CMAJ 2000; 163(7): 819–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    van Staa TP, Kanis JA, Geusens P, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women based on individual long-term fracture risks. Value Health 2007; 10: 348–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stevenson M, Davis S, Lloyd-Jones M, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11:1–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schousboe JT, Ensrud KE, Nyman JA, et al. Universal bone densitometry screening combined with alendronate therapy for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is highly cost-effective for elderly women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005 Oct; 53(10): 1697–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pfister AK, Welch CA, Lester MD, et al. Cost-effectiveness strategies to treat osteoporosis in elderly women. South Med J 2006 Feb; 99(2): 123–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mobley LR, Hoerger TJ, Wittenborn JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment with hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene, or alendronate. Med Decis Making 2006 Mar–Apr; 26(2): 194–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hiligsmann M, Gathon HJ, Bruyère O, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by treatment: the impact of medication adherence. Value Health 2010;13(4): 394–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ström O, Borgström F, Sen SS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the treatment of postmenopausal women in 9 European countries: an economic evaluation based on the fracture intervention trial. Osteoporos Int 2007 Aug; 18(8): 1047–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
  66. 66.
    Barondess JA. Toward reducing the prevalence of chronic disease: a life course perspective on health preservation. Perspect Biol Med 2008 Autumn; 51(4): 616–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Munch S, Shapiro S. The silent thief: osteoporosis and women’s health care across the life span. Health Soc Work 2006 Feb; 31(1): 44–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, et al. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med 2006; 31(1): 52–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Glasgow RE, Orleans CT, Wagner EH. Does the chronic care model serve also as a template for improving prevention? Milbank Q 2001; 79: 579–612, iv–vPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    SGB IX Sozialgesetzbuch Rehabilitation und Teilhabe behinderter Menschen [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sozialgesetzbuch-bundessozialhilfegesetz.de/_buch/sgb_ix.htm [Accessed 2010 May 15]

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Economics, Institute for Health Economics and Clinical EpidemiologyThe University Hospital of Cologne (AöR)KölnGermany
  2. 2.Pennington Biomedical Research Center/Louisiana State UniversityLouisianaUSA

Personalised recommendations