CORE
CO
nnecting
RE
positories
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Research partnership
About
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Community governance
Governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
Innovations
Our research
Labs
research
Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment
Authors
A Oleksik
AC Looker
+47 more
AN Tosteson
AN Tosteson
AN Tosteson
AV Schwartz
DB Karpf
DG Fryback
DH Solomon
DM Black
DM Black
DM Black
E Arias
GR Corliss
H Liu
HD Nelson
J Brazier
J Hanmer
JA Barrett
JA Kanis
JA Kanis
JE Brazier
JF Fitzgerald
Joseph S. Ross
JT Schousboe
JT Schousboe
JT Schousboe
LB Russell
LJ Melton 3rd
LR Mobley
M Heron
Mark S. Roberts
MC Weinstein
O Johnell
P Dolan
R Burge
RL Fleurence
RR Recker
RS Braithwaite
S Nayak
SE Gabriel
SH Woolf
Smita Nayak
SR Cummings
SR Cummings
SR Cummings
Susan L. Greenspan
UA Liberman
Y Lu
Publication date
13 March 2012
Publisher
'Public Library of Science (PLoS)'
Doi
View
on
PubMed
Abstract
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
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
20 through
20
t
h
ro
ug
h
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
o
r
l
e
s
s
,
o
s
t
e
o
p
o
r
o
s
i
s
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
w
a
s
c
o
s
t
−
s
a
v
i
n
g
,
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
i
n
l
o
w
e
r
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
t
h
a
n
n
o
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
m
o
r
e
Q
A
L
Y
s
(
10.6
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
−
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
l
i
f
e
−
d
a
y
s
)
.
W
h
e
n
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
a
l
e
n
d
r
o
n
a
t
e
c
o
s
t
s
o
f
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
200
or
l
ess
,
os
t
eo
p
oros
i
sscree
nin
g
f
o
ll
o
w
e
d
b
y
t
re
a
t
m
e
n
tw
a
scos
t
−
s
a
v
in
g
,
res
u
lt
in
g
in
l
o
w
er
t
o
t
a
l
cos
t
s
t
hann
oscree
nin
g
a
s
w
e
ll
a
s
m
ore
Q
A
L
Y
s
(
10.6
a
dd
i
t
i
o
na
lq
u
a
l
i
t
y
−
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
l
i
f
e
−
d
a
ys
)
.
Wh
e
na
ss
u
min
g
a
l
e
n
d
ro
na
t
ecos
t
so
f
400 through
800
,
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d
i
n
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
l
i
f
e
t
i
m
e
c
o
s
t
s
t
h
a
n
n
o
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
b
u
t
w
a
s
h
i
g
h
l
y
c
o
s
t
−
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
,
w
i
t
h
I
C
E
R
s
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
800, screening and treatment resulted in greater lifetime costs than no screening but was highly cost-effective, with ICERs ranging from
800
,
scree
nin
g
an
d
t
re
a
t
m
e
n
t
res
u
lt
e
d
in
g
re
a
t
er
l
i
f
e
t
im
ecos
t
s
t
hann
oscree
nin
g
b
u
tw
a
s
hi
g
h
l
ycos
t
−
e
ff
ec
t
i
v
e
,
w
i
t
h
I
CER
sr
an
g
in
g
f
ro
m
714 per QALY gained through
13
,
902
p
e
r
Q
A
L
Y
g
a
i
n
e
d
.
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
r
e
v
e
a
l
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
−
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
o
s
t
e
o
p
o
r
o
s
i
s
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
a
l
e
n
d
r
o
n
a
t
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
w
a
s
r
o
b
u
s
t
t
o
j
o
i
n
t
i
n
p
u
t
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
a
w
i
l
l
i
n
g
n
e
s
s
−
t
o
−
p
a
y
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
o
f
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
13
,
902
p
er
Q
A
L
Y
g
ain
e
d
.
P
ro
babi
l
i
s
t
i
cse
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
ana
l
ysesre
v
e
a
l
e
d
t
ha
tt
h
ecos
t
−
e
ff
ec
t
i
v
e
n
esso
f
os
t
eo
p
oros
i
sscree
nin
g
f
o
ll
o
w
e
d
b
y
a
l
e
n
d
ro
na
t
e
t
re
a
t
m
e
n
tw
a
sro
b
u
s
tt
o
j
o
in
t
in
p
u
tp
a
r
am
e
t
eres
t
ima
t
e
v
a
r
ia
t
i
o
na
t
a
w
i
ll
in
g
n
ess
−
t
o
−
p
a
y
t
h
res
h
o
l
d
o
f
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
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
Crossref
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pon...
Last time updated on 01/04/2019
D-Scholarship@Pitt
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:d-scholarship.pitt.edu:141...
Last time updated on 19/07/2013
The Francis Crick Institute
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:figshare.com:article/12775...
Last time updated on 16/03/2018
Directory of Open Access Journals
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:doaj.org/article:f343232b2...
Last time updated on 09/08/2016
Public Library of Science (PLOS)
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
Last time updated on 05/06/2019
Name not available
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:d-scholarship.pitt.edu:141...
Last time updated on 15/12/2016
Name not available
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:d-scholarship.pitt.edu:141...
Last time updated on 23/11/2016
Public Library of Science (PLOS)
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
Last time updated on 18/09/2018