Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life for osteoporosis-related conditions

  • Review
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to statistically combine multiple health state utility values (HSUVs) reported in the literature for patients with osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. Fracture events were associated with decrements in HSUVs which differed between fracture sites. We have provided summary values for use in future health economics analyses in osteoporosis. Osteoporotic fractures have high financial and health burden. Economic evaluations on osteoporotic fracture prevention have been frequently performed in past decades. One of the challenges in the economic evaluations was to identify consistent health state utility values (HSUVs) to use for osteoporotic fracture-related conditions. The objective of this study was to determine summary measures of multiple HSUVs reported in the literature for patients with osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of published literature that reported HSUVs for osteoporotic fracture-related conditions. There were 62 studies representing 142,477 patients included. In total, 362 HSUVs were identified: 106 for pre-fracture; 89 for post-hip fracture; 130 for post-vertebral fracture and 37 for post-wrist fracture. The pooled HSUVs, using a random-effects model were 0.76 (95 % CI 0.75, 0.77, I 2 = 0.99) for pre-fracture; 0.57 (95 % CI 0.52, 0.63, I 2 = 1) for post-hip fracture; 0.59 (95 % CI 0.55, 0.62, I 2 = 0.99) for post-vertebral facture and 0.72 (95 % CI 0.67, 0.78, I 2 = 1) for post-wrist fracture. Heterogeneities were addressed through meta-regression. HSUVs immediately following hip, vertebral and wrist fractures were 0.31, 0.44 and 0.61, respectively. Patients’ HSUVs improved over time following fracture events: HSUVs for the first year after hip, vertebral and wrist fractures were 0.59, 0.55 and 0.78, respectively; and 0.66, 0.66 and 0.81 for subsequent years. Fractures were associated with significant decrements in HSUVs. This study provides a standard set of HSUVs that can be used in health economic assessments in osteoporosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanis JA, Gluer CC (2000) An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 11:192–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kanis J (2007) WHO technical report. University of Sheffield, UK

    Google Scholar 

  3. AIHW (2011) A snapshot of osteoporosis in Australia 2011. AIHW, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jönsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. Arch Osteoporos 8:1–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnell O, Jonsson B, Jonsson L, Black D (2003) Cost effectiveness of alendronate (fosamax(registered trademark)) for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of fractures. Pharmacoeconomics 21:305–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tosteson ANA, Melton LJ III, Dawson-Hughes B, Baim S, Favus MJ, Khosla S, Lindsay RL (2008) Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective. Osteoporos Int 19:437–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Borgstrom F, Strom O, Coelho J, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA (2010) The cost-effectiveness of risedronate in the UK for the management of osteoporosis using the FRAX. Osteoporos Int 21:495–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Si L, Winzenberg TM, Palmer AJ (2014) A systematic review of models used in cost-effectiveness analyses of preventing osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 25:51–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tosteson ANA, Jönsson B, Grima DT, O’Brien BJ, Black DM, Adachi JD (2001) Challenges for model-based economic evaluations of postmenopausal osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporos Int 12:849–857

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 Mak 19:141–148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kaplan RM, Sieber WJ, Ganiats TG (1997) The quality of well-being scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health 12:783–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW (1995) Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 7:490–502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Roberts J, Dolan P (2004) To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set. Health Econ 13:733–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, Brazier JE (2009) An updated systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporos Int 20:853–868

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nakamura T, Osawa M, Itoh M, Yamaguchi H, Iinuma N, Hayakawa Y, Suzuki H, Kamisaki T, Iwayama S, Nishikawa M (2012) The effect of risedronate (17.5 mg/week) treatment on quality of life in Japanese women with osteoporosis: a prospective observational study. J Bone Miner Metab 30:715–721

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Borgstrom F, Lekander I, Ivergard M et al (2013) The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS)—quality of life during the first 4 months after fracture. Osteoporos Int 24:811–823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J (2004) A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13:873–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA (2002) A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporos Int 13:768–776

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The Prisma Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brazier J, Papaioannou D, Cantrell A, Paisley S, Herrmann KH (2010) Chapter 8: Identifying and reviewing health state utility values for populatiing decision models. Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford

  23. Berlin JA (1997) Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Lancet 350:185–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 327:557–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration

  27. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ (2009) A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc: Ser A (Stat Soc) 172:137–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Altman DG, Bland JM (2005) Standard deviations and standard errors. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 331:903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. He Y (2010) Missing data analysis using multiple imputation: getting to the heart of the matter. Circ Cardiovas Qual Outcome 3:98–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM (2011) Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 30:377–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Harbord RM, Higgins JPT (2008) Meta-regression in Stata. Stata J 8:493–519

    Google Scholar 

  32. Baum CF (2006) An introduction to modern econometrics using Stata. Stata Press

  33. Thompson SG, Higgins JP (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21:1559–1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, Braun P, McNeil BJ (1985) Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Dec Making : An Int J Soc Med Dec Making 5:157–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A (1998) Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 316:736–741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY (2011) Cost effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporotic women in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics 29:895–911

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. NICE (2013) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London

  38. Wyld M, Morton R, Hayen A, Howard K, Webster A (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med 9(9):e1001307. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Peasgood T, Ward S, Brazier J (2010) A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer. School of Health and Related Research. University of Sheffield, Sheffield

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cockerill W, Lunt M, Silman AJ et al (2004) Health-related quality of life and radiographic vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:113–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cherepanov D, Palta M, Fryback DG, Robert SA, Hays RD, Kaplan RM (2011) Gender differences in multiple underlying dimensions of health-related quality of life are associated with sociodemographic and socioeconomic status. Med Care 49:1021–1030

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jakob F, Oertel H, Langdahl B et al (2012) Effects of teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis pre-treated with bisphosphonates: 36-month results from the European Forsteo Observational Study. Eur J Endocrinol 166:87–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Eidt-Koch D, Greiner W (2011) Quality of life results of balloon kyphoplasty versus non surgical management for osteoporotic vertebral fractures in Germany. Heal Econ Rev 1:7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, Laet C, Jonsson B (2004) The risk and burden of vertebral fractures in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 15:20–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Trikalinos TA, Olkin I (2012) Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: a multivariate approach. Clin Trials 9:610–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Petr Otahal and Leigh Blizzard for the technical statistical support.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Menzies Research Institute Tasmania, University of Tasmania, Medical Science 1 Building, 17 Liverpool St (Private Bag 23), Hobart, Tasmania, 7000, Australia

    L. Si, T. M. Winzenberg, B. de Graaff & A. J. Palmer

Authors
  1. L. Si
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. M. Winzenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. de Graaff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. J. Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Si.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 227 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 138 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 132 kb)

ESM 4

(PDF 299 kb)

ESM 5

(PDF 286 kb)

ESM 6

(PDF 335 kb)

ESM 7

(PDF 228 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Si, L., Winzenberg, T.M., de Graaff, B. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporos Int 25, 1987–1997 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2636-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2636-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation