Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment

Introduction: Since alendronate became available in generic form in the Unites States in 2008, its price has been decreasing. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women. Methods: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment for U.S. women age 65 and older. We assumed screening initiation at age 65 with central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and alendronate treatment for individuals with osteoporosis; with a comparator of "no screening" and treatment only after fracture occurrence. We evaluated annual alendronate costs of $20 through$800; outcome measures included fractures; nursing home admission; medication adverse events; death; costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2010 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. A lifetime time horizon was used, and direct costs were included. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Base-case analysis results showed that at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less, osteoporosis screening followed by treatment was cost-saving, resulting in lower total costs than no screening as well as more QALYs (10.6 additional quality-adjusted life-days). When assuming alendronate costs of$400 through $800, screening and treatment resulted in greater lifetime costs than no screening but was highly cost-effective, with ICERs ranging from$714 per QALY gained through $13,902 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment was robust to joint input parameter estimate variation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of$50,000/QALY at all alendronate costs evaluated. Conclusions: Osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment is effective and highly cost-effective for postmenopausal women across a range of alendronate costs, and may be cost-saving at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less. © 2012 Nayak et al

FRAX™ and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK

SUMMARY: A fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) is developed based on the use of clinical risk factors with or without bone mineral density tests applied to the UK. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to apply an assessment tool for the prediction of fracture in men and women with the use of clinical risk factors (CRFs) for fracture with and without the use of femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). The clinical risk factors, identified from previous meta-analyses, comprised body mass index (BMI, as a continuous variable), a prior history of fracture, a parental history of hip fracture, use of oral glucocorticoids, rheumatoid arthritis and other secondary causes of osteoporosis, current smoking, and alcohol intake 3 or more units daily. METHODS: Four models were constructed to compute fracture probabilities based on the epidemiology of fracture in the UK. The models comprised the ten-year probability of hip fracture, with and without femoral neck BMD, and the ten-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture, with and without BMD. For each model fracture and death hazards were computed as continuous functions. RESULTS: Each clinical risk factor contributed to fracture probability. In the absence of BMD, hip fracture probability in women with a fixed BMI (25 kg/m(2)) ranged from 0.2% at the age of 50 years for women without CRF's to 22% at the age of 80 years with a parental history of hip fracture (approximately 100-fold range). In men, the probabilities were lower, as was the range (0.1 to 11% in the examples above). For a major osteoporotic fracture the probabilities ranged from 3.5% to 31% in women, and from 2.8% to 15% in men in the example above. The presence of one or more risk factors increased probabilities in an incremental manner. The differences in probabilities between men and women were comparable at any given T-score and age, except in the elderly where probabilities were higher in women than in men due to the higher mortality of the latter. CONCLUSION: The models provide a framework which enhances the assessment of fracture risk in both men and women by the integration of clinical risk factors alone and/or in combination with BMD

Diabetes and change in bone mineral density at the hip, calcaneus, spine, and radius in older women

Older women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) have higher bone mineral density (BMD) but also have higher rates of fracture compared to those without DM. Limited evidence suggests that DM may also be associated with more rapid bone loss. To determine if

Osteoporosis, frailty and fracture: implications for case finding and therapy

In almost all patients with incident fractures, the absolute risk of subsequent fracture and mortality is highest immediately after the fracture is incurred; the risk is substantially increased in frail elderly patients. The risk factors for incident fractures, such as bone fragility, tendency to fall and the presence of metabolic bone disease, remain underdiagnosed and undertreated. Here, we review the evidence that demonstrates the influence of these risk factors on susceptibility to subsequent fracture and mortality after an incident fracture, and discuss the tools available to predict these outcomes. In this Review, we also propose a systematic, coordinator-based approach to assessment of risk, allocation of treatment and follow-up in all patients over 50 years of age who present with a fracture. The aim of this proposed multistep procedure is to improve the prevention of secondary fracture, decrease mortality rates and reduce patient undertreatment or overtreatment