Evidence to inform decision makers in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment strategies for postmenopausal osteoporosis

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of CT-Based Finite Element Modeling for Osteoporosis Screening in Secondary Fracture Prevention: An Early Health Technology Assessment in the Netherlands

Objective. To conduct cost-utility analyses for Computed Tomography To Strength (CT2S), a novel osteoporosis screening service, compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), treat all without screening, and no screening methods for Dutch postmenopausal women referred to fracture liaison service (FLS). CT2S uses CT scans to generate femur models and simulate sideways fall scenarios for bone strength assessment. Methods. Early health technology assessment (HTA) was adopted to evaluate CT2S as a novel osteoporosis screening tool for secondary fracture prevention. We constructed a 2-dimensional simulation model considering 4 strategies (no screening, treat all without screening, DXA, CT2S) together with screening intervals (5 y, 2 y), treatments (oral alendronate, zoledronic acid), and discount rate scenarios among Dutch women in 3 age groups (60s, 70s, and 80s). Strategy comparisons were based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), considering an ICER below €20,000 per QALY gained as cost-effective in the Netherlands. Results. Under the base-case scenario, CT2S versus DXA had estimated ICERs of €41,200 and €14,083 per QALY gained for the 60s and 70s age groups, respectively. For the 80s age group, CT2S was more effective and less costly than DXA. Changing treatment from weekly oral alendronate to annual zoledronic acid substantially decreased CT2S versus DXA ICERs across all age groups. Setting the screening interval to 2 y increased CT2S versus DXA ICERs to €100,333, €55,571, and €15,750 per QALY gained for the 60s, 70s, and 80s age groups, respectively. In all simulated populations and scenarios, CT2S was cost-effective (in some cases dominant) compared with the treat all strategy and cost-saving (more effective and less costly) compared with no screening. Conclusion. CT2S was estimated to be potentially cost-effective in the 70s and 80s age groups considering the willingness-to-pay threshold of the Netherlands. This early HTA suggests CT2S as a potential novel osteoporosis screening tool for secondary fracture prevention.

Highlights

For postmenopausal Dutch women who have been referred to the FLS, direct access to CT2S may be cost-effective compared with DXA for age groups 70s and 80s, when considering the ICER threshold of the Netherlands. This study positions CT2S as a potential novel osteoporosis-screening tool for secondary fracture prevention in the clinical setting.A shorter screening interval of 2 y increases the effectiveness of both screening strategies, but the ICER of CT2S compared with DXA also increased substantially, which made CT2S no longer cost-effective for the 70s age group; however, it remains cost-effective for individuals in their 80s.Annual zoledronic acid treatment with better adherence may contribute to a lower cost-effectiveness ratio when comparing CT2S to DXA screening and the treat all strategies for all age groups.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing future osteoporotic fractures among older adults: a structured scoping review

This scoping review described the use, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to prevent future osteoporotic fractures among older adults. Results show that the screening was not superior in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures to usual care. However, it positively influenced participants' perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fractures, and seemed cost-effective.

PURPOSE

We aim to provide a synopsis of the evidence about the use of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to influence health outcomes, including reducing future osteoporotic fractures and their cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We followed the guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley and their modifications. A comprehensive search strategy was created to search CINAHL, Medline, and Embase databases until June 29, 2021, with no restrictions. We critically appraised the quality of all included studies.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review after screening 2484 titles and 68 full-text articles. Four randomized controlled trials investigated the effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing all fractures among older women. Using those assessment tools did not show a statistically significant reduction in osteoporotic fracture risk compared to usual care; however, additional analyses of two of these trials showed a trend toward reducing hip fractures, and the results might be clinically significant. Four studies tested the impact of screening programs on other health outcomes, and participants reported positive results. Eight simulation studies estimated the cost-effectiveness of using these tools to screen for fractures, with the majority showing significant potential savings.

CONCLUSION

According to the available evidence to date, using clinical fracture-risk assessment screening tools was not more effective than usual care in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures. However, using those screening tools positively influenced women's perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fracture risk, and could potentially be cost-effective. This is a relatively new research area where additional studies are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of selective bone densitometry using the osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians in multi-ethnic Asian population

Early detection and treatment of osteoporosis can help to prevent debilitating fractures in the elderly. The osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians can be used as a screening tool to stratify patients for bone densitometry. It is most cost-effective for post-menopausal women aged 70 and males aged 75.

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of selective bone densitometry (SBD) using the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) as a risk-stratifying tool for the three predominant races (Chinese, Malay and Indian) in Singapore.

METHODS

Decision analytical models were developed using a Markov model. Three scenarios were compared: no bone densitometry, SBD using the OSTA as a pre-screening tool and universal bone densitometry. Those diagnosed with osteoporosis were treated with five years of alendronate therapy. Data sources were from Singapore epidemiological studies, healthcare cost figures and published literature. Measurements include life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

Compared to no bone densitometry, SBD using the OSTA would cost between $40,679 and $73,909 per QALY gained for men aged 75-80 and $22,386 to $58,185 per QALY gained for post-menopausal women aged 70-80. Universal bone densitometry would cost $157,955 to $177,127 per QALY gained for men aged 75-80 and $40,179 to $66,112 per QALY gained for post-menopausal women aged 70 to 80 compared to SBD.

CONCLUSION

In general, osteoporosis screening was the most cost-effective for Malays and the least cost-effective for Indians. However, a general guideline should still be applied to the Singaporean population, as further explained later. Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for males would be using OSTA as a risk-stratifying tool at age 75. For post-menopausal women, SBD should be used for women aged 70, while universal bone densitometry should be used for women aged 75-80.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for high-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Thailand

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture in Thailand.Materials and methods: A published Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model was populated with country-specific data as available and other published data as needed. The model used a societal perspective, lifetime horizon, efficacy data from network meta-analysis of trials, and included costs for direct medical and non-medical care, informal care, and osteoporosis treatments to compare denosumab to no pharmacologic treatment (calcium and vitamin D supplements only) and to oral weekly alendronate. The base case (high-risk population) included postmenopausal women with femoral neck T-score ≤-2.5, mean age 65 years at entry, and history of vertebral fracture.Results: High-risk women with osteoporosis using denosumab had the greatest number of life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with higher reductions in hip and vertebral fracture incidence compared with patients with no pharmacologic treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 119,575 Thai Baht (THB) per QALY for denosumab versus no pharmacologic treatment and 199,186 THB per QALY for denosumab versus alendronate. Among Thai postmenopausal women with high-risk of fractures, denosumab was cost-effective compared with no pharmacologic treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed models were most sensitive to changes in denosumab pricing.Limitations: Data from other countries used when country-specific data were unavailable may not accurately reflect the true experience in Thailand. The model focused explicitly on hip, vertebral, and wrist fractures, and therefore provides a conservative estimate of the overall potential impact of osteoporosis-related fracture. The fracture risk was not adjusted to reflect potential changes in risk after denosumab treatment discontinuation.Conclusions: In Thailand, denosumab offers a cost-effective osteoporosis treatment option versus no pharmacologic treatment in postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture.

Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening strategies for hip fracture prevention in older Chinese people: a decision tree modeling study in the Mr. OS and Ms. OS cohort in Hong Kong

Despite the high costs of hip fracture, many governments provide limited support for osteoporosis screening. We demonstrated that osteoporosis screening by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with or without pre-screening by Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) or calcaneal ultrasound are more cost-effective than no screening in Chinese people aged 65 or over in Hong Kong.

INTRODUCTION

To examine the cost-effective potential osteoporosis screening strategies for hip fracture prevention in Hong Kong.

METHODS

Decision tree models were constructed to evaluate the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the different osteoporosis screening strategies followed by subsequent 5-year treatment with alendronate compared to no screening (but treat if a hip fracture occurs). The multiple osteoporosis screening strategies were composed of alternative tests and initiation age groups were evaluated with a 10-year horizon, and treatment were assigned if central dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) T-score (at either the hip or spine) is - 2.5 or less. Strategies included DXA for all people and pre-screening with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) at specific thresholds or by calcaneal quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) before taking DXA examination. All the model inputs were based on the Mr. OS and Ms. OS Hong Kong cohort; data are obtained from the Social Welfare Department or the published literature.

RESULTS

All of the screening strategies, including the universal screening with DXA and the pre-screening with FRAX or QUS before DXA, were consistently more cost-effective than no screening for people aged 65 years old or over. One-way sensitivity analysis with a more optimistic assumption on treatment adherence or inclusion of other major osteoporotic fractures did not change the results materially. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed a dominant role of pre-screening with FRAX followed by subsequent osteoporosis drug treatment in people aged 70 years old or over in Hong Kong.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis screening strategies based on DXA with or without pre-screening are more cost-effective compared to no screening for Chinese people aged 65 or over in Hong Kong.

Screening for osteoporosis in Chinese post-menopausal women: a health economic modelling study

Screening and appropriate treatment for osteoporosis has been proven to be cost-effective in many populations; however, it is not clear in the Chinese population. Simulations using a validated health economics model suggest that screening for osteoporosis in Chinese women is cost-effective and may even be cost-saving in Chinese post-menopausal women.

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed at determining the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening strategies in post-menopausal Chinese women.

METHODS

A validated state-transition microsimulation model with a lifetime horizon was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies with treatment of alendronate compared with current osteoporosis management in China. Osteoporosis screening strategies assessed were (1) universal screening with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) alone; (2) Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) + DXA; and (3) quantitative ultrasound (QUS) + DXA with rescreening at 2, 5 or 10-year intervals for patients screened negative by DXA. The study was performed from the Chinese healthcare payer's perspective. All model inputs were retrieved from publically available literature. Uncertainties were addressed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Screening strategies all improved clinical outcomes at increased costs, and each were cost-effective compared with no screening in women aged 55 years given the Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Pre-screening with QUS and subsequent DXA screening if the QUS T-score ≤ -0.5 with a 2-year rescreening interval was the most cost-effective strategy with the highest probability of being cost-effective across all non-dominated strategies. Screening strategies were cost-saving if screenings were initiated from age 65 years. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-screening with QUS with subsequent DXA screening if the QUS T-score ≤ -0.5 with a 2-year rescreening interval in the Chinese women starting at age 55 is the most cost-effective. In addition, screening and treatment strategies are cost-saving if the screening initiation age is greater than 65 years.

Screening for and treatment of osteoporosis: construction and validation of a state-transition microsimulation cost-effectiveness model

This study aimed to document and validate a new cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategies. The state-transition microsimulation model demonstrates strong internal and external validity. It is an important tool for researchers and policy makers to test the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategies.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to document and validate a new cost-effectiveness model of screening for and treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

A state-transition microsimulation model using a lifetime horizon was constructed with seven Markov states (no history of fractures, hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, other fracture, postfracture state, and death) describing the most important clinical outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Tracker variables were used to record patients' history, such as fracture events, duration of treatment, and time since last screening. The model was validated for Chinese postmenopausal women receiving screening and treatment versus no screening. Goodness-of-fit analyses were performed for internal and external validation. External validity was tested by comparing life expectancy, osteoporosis prevalence rate, and lifetime and 10-year fracture risks with published data not used in the model.

RESULTS

The model represents major clinical facets of osteoporosis-related conditions. Age-specific hip, vertebral, and wrist fracture incidence rates were accurately reproduced (the regression line slope was 0.996, R(2) = 0.99). The changes in costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness were consistent with changes in both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The model predicted life expectancy and 10-year any major osteoporotic fracture risk at the age of 65 of 19.01 years and 13.7%, respectively. The lifetime hip, clinical vertebral, and wrist fracture risks at age 50 were 7.9, 29.8, and 18.7% respectively, all consistent with reported data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model demonstrated good internal and external validity, ensuring it can be confidently applied in economic evaluations of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategies.