Cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments for women with osteoporosis in Canada

Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture in Canada

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab followed by alendronate versus oral bisphosphonates alone in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at very high risk for fracture in Canada. Results showed that romosozumab sequenced to alendronate is a cost-effective treatment option, dominating both alendronate and risedronate alone.

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the value of romosozumab sequenced to alendronate compared to alendronate or risedronate alone, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with a history of osteoporotic fracture and who are at very high risk for future fracture in Canada.

METHODS

A Markov model followed a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic women at very high risk for future fractures, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab and alendronate compared to oral bisphosphonates alone. A total treatment period of 5 years was assumed. Quality-adjusted life years and costs were estimated for each comparator across health states defined by different types of fragility fractures.

RESULTS

Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with a lifetime gain of 0.103 and 0.127 QALYs and a cost reduction of $343 and $3805, relative to alendronate and risedronate, respectively. These results were driven by a reduction of the number of fractures (2561 per 1000 patients, versus 2700 for alendronate and 2724 for risedronate over lifetime). Romosozumab/alendronate had the highest probability of being cost-effective, relative to alendronate and risedronate, at any willingness to pay threshold value.

CONCLUSION

Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with reduced costs and greater benefit relative to other comparators. Probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses indicate that romosozumab/alendronate represents the best value for money; the uncertainty analyses are robust, and therefore romosozumab should be considered for reimbursement by public drug plans in Canada .

Effect of systemic bisphosphonate administration on patients with periodontal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Periodontal disease is a chronic oral infectious disease affecting adults worldwide as well as a lifestyle-related disease related to diabetes. Bisphosphonate is a drug often taken by patients with osteoporosis; however, it reportedly can cause jawbone necrosis. Due to its mechanism of action on bone tissue, bisphosphonate has been used topically on periodontal tissue to treat periodontal disease. However, the long-term systemic effects of bisphosphonates on periodontal tissues are unclear. This paper describes a protocol evaluating the effects of systemic bisphosphonate administration to prevent periodontal tissue destruction in patients with periodontal disease. No systematic review has attempted to summarise the evidence for systemic bisphosphonates in periodontal therapy. The results of the proposed systematic review will inform the practice and design of future clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review of the relevant published analytic research using an aggregative thematic approach according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. Two authors will perform a comprehensive search for studies on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, LILACS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol of this systematic review will be provided in a peer-reviewed journal. Formal ethics approval is not necessary because researchers will not identify individuals in the report.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020212698 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).

Osteoporosis Detection by Physical Function Tests in Resident Health Exams: A Japanese Cohort Survey Randomly Sampled from a Basic Resident Registry

Osteoporosis may increase fracture risk and reduce healthy quality of life in older adults. This study aimed to identify an assessment method using physical performance tests to screen for osteoporosis in community dwelling individuals. A total of 168 women aged 50–89 years without diagnosed osteoporosis were randomly selected from the resident registry of a cooperating town for the evaluation of physical characteristics, muscle strength, and several physical performance tests. The most effective combinations of evaluation items to detect osteoporosis (i.e., T-score ≤ −2.5 at the spine or hip) were selected by multivariate analysis and cutoff values were determined by likelihood ratio matrices. Thirty-six women (21.4%) were classified as having osteoporosis. By analyzing combinations of two-step test (TST) score and body mass index (BMI), osteoporosis could be reliably suspected in individuals with TST ≤ 1.30 and BMI ≤ 23.4, TST ≤ 1.32 and BMI ≤ 22.4, TST ≤ 1.34 and BMI ≤ 21.6, or TST < 1.24 and any BMI. Setting cut-off values for TST in combination with BMI represents an easy and possibly effective screening tool for osteoporosis detection in resident health exams.

Healthcare Policy Changes in Osteoporosis Can Improve Outcomes and Reduce Costs in the United States

In the United States, osteoporosis affects over 10 million adults, has high societal costs ($22 billion in 2008), and is currently being underdiagnosed and undertreated. Given an aging population, this burden is expected to rise. We projected the fracture burden in US women by modeling the expected demographic shift as well as potential policy changes. With the anticipated population aging and growth, annual fractures are projected to increase from 1.9 million to 3.2 million (68%), from 2018 to 2040, with related costs rising from $57 billion to over $95 billion. Policy‐driven expansion of case finding and treatment of at‐risk women could lower this burden, preventing 6.1 million fractures over the next 22 years while reducing payer costs by $29 billion and societal costs by $55 billion. Increasing use of osteoporosis‐related interventions can reduce fractures and result in substantial cost‐savings, a rare and fortunate combination given the current landscape in healthcare policy. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Complex interventions can increase osteoporosis investigations and treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Osteoporosis is affecting over 200 million people worldwide. Despite available guidelines, care for these patients remains sub-optimal. We developed an osteoporosis tool to address the multiple dimensions of chronic disease management. Findings from its evaluation showed a significant increase from baseline in osteoporosis investigations and treatment, so we are revising this tool to include multiple chronic conditions including an update of evidence about osteoporosis. Our objectives were to conduct a systematic review of osteoporosis interventions in adults at risk for osteoporosis. We searched bibliometric databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language evaluating osteoporosis disease management interventions in adults at risk for osteoporosis. Reviewer pairs independently screened citations and full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Analysis included random effects meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were osteoporosis investigations and treatment, and fragility fractures. Fifty-five RCTs and one companion report were included in the analysis representing 165,703 patients. Our findings from 55 RCTs and 18 sub-group meta-analyses showed that complex implementation interventions with multiple components consisting of at least education + feedback + follow-up significantly increased the initiation of osteoporosis medications, and interventions with at least education + follow-up significantly increased the initiation of osteoporosis investigations. No significant impact was found for any type of intervention to reduce fracture. Complex interventions that include at least education + follow-up or feedback have the most potential for increasing osteoporosis investigations and treatment. Patient education appears to be an important component in osteoporosis disease management.

Undertreatment of osteoporosis following hip fractures in jeju cohort study

Background

Osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture is well known to not enough. We previously performed intervention study for orthopaedic surgeon's education and reported twofold increase in osteoporosis detection and treatment rate observed between 2005 and 2007. This follow-up observational study was conducted to find out the rate in which a diagnostic workup and treatment for osteoporosis were done in patients with hip fracture.

Methods

Medical records and radiographs in patients who were older than 50 years and diagnosed as having femoral neck or intertrochanteric fractures at 8 hospitals in Jeju island, South Korea from 2008 to 2011 were reviewed. The numbers of patients who were studied with bone densitometry and who were treated for osteoporosis after the diagnosis of hip fracture were analyzed.

Results

Nine hundred forty five hip fractures (201 in 2008, 257 in 2009, 265 in 2010, and 304 in 2011) occurred in 191 men and 754 women during the study periods. The mean age of the patients was 79.7 years. The mean rate of osteoporosis detection using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry was 36.4% (344/945 hips) (ranged from 24.2% in 2009 to 40.5% in 2011). The mean initiation rate of osteoporosis treatment was 23.1% (218/945 hips) (ranged from 20% in 2009 to 29% in 2008).

Conclusions

Detection and treatment rate of osteoporosis following hip fracture during follow-up periods was still not enough. Additional intervention studies are required to further improvement of osteoporosis treatment rates after hip fracture.

A knowledge translation tool improved osteoporosis disease management in primary care: an interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide at a high cost to healthcare systems, yet gaps in management still exist. In response, we developed a multi-component osteoporosis knowledge translation (Op-KT) tool involving a patient-initiated risk assessment questionnaire (RAQ), which generates individualized best practice recommendations for physicians and customized education for patients at the point of care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Op-KT tool for appropriate disease management by physicians.

METHODS

The Op-KT tool was evaluated using an interrupted time series design. This involved multiple assessments of the outcomes 12 months before (baseline) and 12 months after tool implementation (52 data points in total). Inclusion criteria were family physicians and their patients at risk for osteoporosis (women aged ≥ 50 years, men aged ≥ 65 years). Primary outcomes were the initiation of appropriate osteoporosis screening and treatment. Analyses included segmented linear regression modeling and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The Op-KT tool was implemented in three family practices in Ontario, Canada representing 5 family physicians with 2840 age eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 76% women). Time series regression models showed an overall increase from baseline in the initiation of screening (3.4%; P < 0.001), any osteoporosis medications (0.5%; P = 0.006), and calcium or vitamin D (1.2%; P = 0.001). Improvements were also observed at site level for all the three sites considered, but these results varied across the sites. Of 351 patients who completed the RAQ unprompted (mean age 64 years, 77% women), the mean time for completing the RAQ was 3.43 minutes, and 56% had any disease management addressed by their physician. Study limitations included the inherent susceptibility of our design compared with a randomized trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The multicomponent Op-KT tool significantly increased osteoporosis investigations in three family practices, and highlights its potential to facilitate patient self-management. Next steps include wider implementation and evaluation of the tool in primary care.

Direct comparison of eight national FRAX® tools for fracture prediction and treatment qualification in Canadian women

SUMMARY

We compared the calibration of FRAX tools from Canada, the US (white), UK, Sweden, France, Australia, New Zealand, and China when used to assess fracture risk in 36,730 Canadian women. Our data underscores the importance of applying country-specific FRAX tools that are based upon high-quality national fracture epidemiology.

PURPOSE

A FRAX® model for Canada was constructed for prediction of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) using national hip fracture and mortality data. We examined the calibration of this model in Canadian women and compared it with seven other FRAX tools.

METHODS

In women aged ≥50 years with baseline bone mineral density (BMD) measures identified from the Manitoba Bone Density Program, Canada (n = 36,730), 10-year fracture probabilities were calculated with and without BMD using selected country-specific FRAX tools. FRAX risk estimates were compared with observed fractures ≤10 years (506 hip, 2,380 MOF). Ten-year fracture risk was compared with predicted probabilities, and proportions exceeding specific treatment thresholds contrasted.

RESULTS

For hip fracture prediction, good calibration was observed for FRAX Canada and most other country-specific FRAX tools, excepting Sweden (risk overestimated) and China (risk underestimated). For MOF prediction, greater between-country differences were seen; FRAX Sweden and FRAX China showed the largest over- and underestimation in this Canadian population. Relative to treatment qualification based upon FRAX Canada, treatment of high-hip fracture probability (≥3%) was greater by FRAX Sweden (ratio 1.41 without and 1.55 with BMD), and markedly less by FRAX China (ratio 0.09 without and 0.11 with BMD). Greater between-country differences were observed for treatment of high MOF (≥20%); FRAX Sweden again greatly increased (ratio 1.76 without and 1.83 with BMD), and FRAX China severely reduced treatment qualification (ratio 0.00 without and 0.01 with BMD).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of country-specific FRAX tools, accurately calibrated to the target population, is essential. Relatively small calibration differences can have large effects on high-risk categorization and treatment qualification.

Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a US private payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs.

RESULTS

In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs.

CONCLUSION

The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a Quebec societal perspective

STUDY DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness model from a Quebec societal perspective using meta-analyses of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared with other post-first-line oral medications.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Duloxetine has recently received a CLBP indication in Canada. The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine and other oral medications has not previously been evaluated for CLBP.

METHODS

A Markov model was created on the basis of the economic model documented in the 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Treatment-specific utilities were estimated via a meta-analysis of CLBP clinical trials and a transfer-to-utility regression estimated from duloxetine CLBP trial data. Adverse event rates of comparator treatments were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated by a meta-analysis of clinical trials in osteoarthritis using a maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were developed primarily from Quebec and Ontario public sources as well as the published literature and expert opinion. The 6 comparators were celecoxib, naproxen, amitriptyline, pregabalin, hydromorphone, and oxycodone. Subgroup analyses and 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case, naproxen, celecoxib, and duloxetine were on the cost-effectiveness frontier, with naproxen the least expensive medication, celecoxib with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,881, and duloxetine with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $43,437. Other comparators were dominated. Key drivers included the rates of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events and proton pump inhibitor usage. In subgroup analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for duloxetine fell to $21,567 for a population 65 years or older and to $18,726 for a population at higher risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The model estimates that duloxetine is a moderately cost-effective treatment for CLBP, becoming more cost-effective for populations older than 65 years or at greater risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a US private payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) from a US private payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was undertaken for duloxetine and seven oral post-first-line comparators, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), weak and strong opioids, and an anticonvulsant. We created a Markov model on the basis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines. Health states included treatment, death, and 12 states associated with serious adverse events (AEs). We estimated treatment-specific utilities by carrying out a meta-analysis of pain scores from CLBP clinical trials and developing a transfer-to-utility equation using duloxetine CLBP patient-level data. Probabilities of AEs were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated from osteoarthritis clinical trials by using a novel maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were gathered from Red Book, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature, and, for a limited number of inputs, expert opinion. The model performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost acceptability curves.

RESULTS

The model estimated an ICER of $59,473 for duloxetine over naproxen. ICERs under $30,000 were estimated for duloxetine over non-NSAIDs, with duloxetine dominating all strong opioids. In subpopulations at a higher risk of NSAID-related AEs, the ICER over naproxen was $33,105 or lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine appears to be a cost-effective post-first-line treatment for CLBP compared with all but generic NSAIDs. In subpopulations at risk of NSAID-related AEs, it is particularly cost-effective.

An economic evaluation: Simulation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of universal prevention strategies against osteoporosis-related fractures

A patient-level Markov decision model was used to simulate a virtual cohort of 500,000 women 40 years old and over, in relation to osteoporosis-related hip, clinical vertebral, and wrist bone fractures events. Sixteen different screening options of three main scenario groups were compared: (1) the status quo (no specific national prevention program); (2) a universal primary prevention program; and (3) a universal screening and treatment program based on the 10-year absolute risk of fracture. The outcomes measured were total directs costs from the perspective of the public health care system, number of fractures, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results show that an option consisting of a program promoting physical activity and treatment if a fracture occurs is the most cost-effective (CE) (cost/fracture averted) alternative and also the only cost saving one, especially for women 40 to 64 years old. In women who are 65 years and over, bone mineral density (BMD)-based screening and treatment based on the 10-year absolute fracture risk calculated using a Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool is the best next alternative. In terms of cost-utility (CU), results were similar. For women less than 65 years old, a program promoting physical activity emerged as cost-saving but BMD-based screening with pharmacological treatment also emerged as an interesting alternative. In conclusion, a program promoting physical activity is the most CE and CU option for women 40 to 64 years old. BMD screening and pharmacological treatment might be considered a reasonable alternative for women 65 years old and over because at a healthcare capacity of $50,000 Canadian dollars ($CAD) for each additional fracture averted or for one QALY gained its probabilities of cost-effectiveness compared to the program promoting physical activity are 63% and 75%, respectively, which could be considered socially acceptable. Consideration of the indirect costs could change these findings.

Estimation of the lifetime risk of hip fracture for women and men in Canada

In Canada in 2008, based on current rates of fracture and mortality, a woman or man at age 50 years will have a projected lifetime risk of fracture of 12.1% and 4.6%, respectively, and 8.9% and 6.7% after incorporating declining rates of hip fracture and increases in longevity.

INTRODUCTION

In 1989, the lifetime risk of hip fractures in Canada was 14.0% (women) and 5.2% (men). Since then, there have been changes in rates of hip fracture and increased longevity. We update these estimates to 2008 adjusted for these trends, and in addition, we estimated the lifetime risk of first hip fracture.

METHODS

We used national administrative data from fiscal year April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 to identify all hip fractures in Canada. We estimated the crude lifetime risk of hip fracture for age 50 years to end of life using life tables. We projected lifetime risk incorporating national trends in hip fracture and increased longevity from Poisson regressions. Finally, we removed the percentage of second hip fractures to estimate the lifetime risk of first hip fracture.

RESULTS

From April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, there were 21,687 hip fractures, 15,742 (72.6%) in women and 5,945 (27.4%) in men. For women and men, the crude lifetime risk was 12.1% (95%CI, 12.1, 12.2%) and 4.6% (95%CI, 4.5, 4.7%), respectively. When trends in mortality and hip fractures were both incorporated, the lifetime risk of hip fracture were 8.9% (95%CI, 2.3, 15.4%) and 6.7% (95%CI, 1.2, 12.2%). The lifetime risks for first hip fracture were 7.3% (95%CI, 0.8, 13.9%) and 6.2% (95%CI, 0.7, 11.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The lifetime risk of hip fracture has fallen from 1989 to 2008 for women and men. Adjustments for trends in mortality and rates of hip fracture with removing second fractures produced non-significant differences in estimates.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Canada

OBJECTIVE

Denosumab is a novel biologic agent approved in Canada for treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis (PMO) in women at high risk for fracture or who have failed or are intolerant to other osteoporosis therapies. This study estimated cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs usual care from the perspective of the Ontario public payer.

METHODS

A previously published PMO Markov cohort model was adapted for Canada to estimate cost-effectiveness of denosumab. The primary analysis included women with demographic characteristics similar to those from the pivotal phase III denosumab PMO trial (FREEDOM; age 72 years, femoral neck BMD T-score -2.16 SD, vertebral fracture prevalence 23.6%). Three additional scenario sub-groups were examined including women: (1) at high fracture risk, defined in FREEDOM as having at least two of three risk factors (age 70+; T-score ≤ -3.0 SD at lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck; prevalent vertebral fracture); (2) age 75+; and (3) intolerant or contraindicated to oral bisphosphonates (BPs). Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon comparing denosumab to usual care ('no therapy', alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene [sub-group 3 only]). The analysis considered treatment-specific persistence and post-discontinuation residual efficacy, as well as treatment-specific adverse events. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The multi-therapy comparisons resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab vs alendronate of $60,266 (2010 CDN$) (primary analysis) and $27,287 per quality-adjusted life year gained for scenario sub-group 1. Denosumab dominated all therapies in the remaining scenarios.

LIMITATIONS

Key limitations include a lack of long-term, real-world, Canadian data on persistence with denosumab as well as an absence of head-to-head clinical data, leaving one to rely on meta-analyses based on trials comparing treatment to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab may be cost-effective compared to oral PMO treatments for women at high risk of fractures and those who are intolerant and/or contraindicated to oral BPs.

Evaluation of a clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management: protocol for an interrupted time series design

Background

Osteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide at a high cost to healthcare systems. Although guidelines on assessing and managing osteoporosis are available, many patients are not receiving appropriate diagnostic testing or treatment. Findings from a systematic review of osteoporosis interventions, a series of mixed-methods studies, and advice from experts in osteoporosis and human-factors engineering were used collectively to develop a multicomponent tool (targeted to family physicians and patients at risk for osteoporosis) that may support clinical decision making in osteoporosis disease management at the point of care.

Methods

A three-phased approach will be used to evaluate the osteoporosis tool. In phase 1, the tool will be implemented in three family practices. It will involve ensuring optimal functioning of the tool while minimizing disruption to usual practice. In phase 2, the tool will be pilot tested in a quasi-experimental interrupted time series (ITS) design to determine if it can improve osteoporosis disease management at the point of care. Phase 3 will involve conducting a qualitative postintervention follow-up study to better understand participants' experiences and perceived utility of the tool and readiness to adopt the tool at the point of care.

Discussion

The osteoporosis tool has the potential to make several contributions to the development and evaluation of complex, chronic disease interventions, such as the inclusion of an implementation strategy prior to conducting an evaluation study. Anticipated benefits of the tool may be to increase awareness for patients about osteoporosis and its associated risks and provide an opportunity to discuss a management plan with their physician, which may all facilitate patient self-management.

Osteoimmunopathology in HIV/AIDS: A Translational Evidence-Based Perspective

Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV) and the resulting acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) alter not only cellular immune regulation but also the bone metabolism. Since cellular immunity and bone metabolism are intimately intertwined in the osteoimmune network, it is to be expected that bone metabolism is also affected in patients with HIV/AIDS. The concerted evidence points convincingly toward impaired activity of osteoblasts and increased activity of osteoclasts in patients with HIV/AIDS, leading to a significant increase in the prevalence of osteoporosis. Research attributes these outcomes in part at least to the ART, PI, and HAART therapies endured by these patients. We review and discuss these lines of evidence from the perspective of translational clinically relevant complex systematic reviews for comparative effectiveness analysis and evidence-based intervention on a global scale.

Fracture prediction and calibration of a Canadian FRAX® tool: a population-based report from CaMos

A new Canadian WHO fracture risk assessment (FRAX®) tool to predict 10-year fracture probability was compared with observed 10-year fracture outcomes in a large Canadian population-based study (CaMos). The Canadian FRAX tool showed good calibration and discrimination for both hip and major osteoporotic fractures.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to validate a new Canadian WHO fracture risk assessment (FRAX®) tool in a prospective, population-based cohort, the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos).

METHODS

A FRAX tool calibrated to the Canadian population was developed by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases using national hip fracture and mortality data. Ten-year FRAX probabilities with and without bone mineral density (BMD) were derived for CaMos women (N = 4,778) and men (N = 1,919) and compared with observed fracture outcomes to 10 years (Kaplan-Meier method). Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the contribution of individual FRAX variables.

RESULTS

Mean overall 10-year FRAX probability with BMD for major osteoporotic fractures was not significantly different from the observed value in men [predicted 5.4% vs. observed 6.4% (95%CI 5.2-7.5%)] and only slightly lower in women [predicted 10.8% vs. observed 12.0% (95%CI 11.0-12.9%)]. FRAX was well calibrated for hip fracture assessment in women [predicted 2.7% vs. observed 2.7% (95%CI 2.2-3.2%)] but underestimated risk in men [predicted 1.3% vs. observed 2.4% (95%CI 1.7-3.1%)]. FRAX with BMD showed better fracture discrimination than FRAX without BMD or BMD alone. Age, body mass index, prior fragility fracture and femoral neck BMD were significant independent predictors of major osteoporotic fractures; sex, age, prior fragility fracture and femoral neck BMD were significant independent predictors of hip fractures.

CONCLUSION

The Canadian FRAX tool provides predictions consistent with observed fracture rates in Canadian women and men, thereby providing a valuable tool for Canadian clinicians assessing patients at risk of fracture.

The cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid 5 mg for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women with prior fractures: evidence from Finland, Norway and the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to assess the cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid 5 mg as a first-line treatment for the secondary prevention of fragility fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in Finland, Norway and the Netherlands.

METHODS

A discrete-event, individual-patient computer-simulation model was used to compare the cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid with that of basic treatment (calcium and vitamin D) and commonly prescribed bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years who have experienced one previous fracture and have a bone mineral density T-score of -2.5.

RESULTS

The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with zoledronic acid compared with basic treatment ranged from being cost saving in all age groups in Norway, to costing approximately €19,000 in Finland and €22,300 in the Netherlands. Compared with the other branded bisphosphonates, zoledronic acid was cost saving in many scenarios, including all age groups in Finland. In Norway, zoledronic acid dominated branded risedronate and ibandronate in all age groups and dominated or had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of up to NOK83,954 per QALY gained compared with branded alendronate. In the Netherlands, zoledronic acid dominated branded intravenous ibandronate in all age groups; compared with branded risedronate and oral ibandronate, zoledronic acid dominated or had ICERs of up to €4832 per QALY gained; compared with branded alendronate, it had ICERs of up to €48,383 per QALY gained. In all three countries, zoledronic acid may be cost effective compared with generic alendronate when patient compliance with drug therapy is taken into account. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust to changes in key values. The main model limitations were the lack of real-life compliance and persistence data, and lack of country-specific data for some parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Using local or commonly used thresholds, this analysis suggests that zoledronic acid would be a cost-effective first-line option compared with other branded bisphosphonates and, in some scenarios, compared with generic alendronate, for the secondary prevention of fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in Finland, Norway and the Netherlands.

Identifying cost-effective treatment with raloxifene in postmenopausal women using risk algorithms for fractures and invasive breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

The National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends considering treatment in women with a 20% or higher 10-year probability of a major fracture. However, raloxifene reduces both the risk of vertebral fractures and invasive breast cancer so that raloxifene treatment may be clinically appropriate and cost-effective in women who do not meet a 20% threshold risk. The aim of this study was to identify cost-effective scenarios of raloxifene treatment compared to no treatment in younger postmenopausal women at increased risk of invasive breast cancer and fracture risks below 20%.

METHOD

A micro-simulation model populated with data specific to American Caucasian women was used to quantify the costs and benefits of 5-year raloxifene treatment. The population evaluated was selected based on 10-year major fracture probability as estimated with FRAX® being below 20% and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk as estimated with the Gail risk model ranging from 1% to 5%.

RESULTS

The cost per QALY gained ranged from US $22,000 in women age 55 with 5% invasive breast cancer risk and 15-19.9% fracture probability, to $110,000 in women age 55 with 1% invasive breast cancer risk and 5-9.9% fracture probability. Raloxifene was progressively cost-effective with increasing fracture risk and invasive breast cancer risk for a given age cohort. At lower fracture risk in combination with lower invasive breast cancer risk or when no preventive raloxifene effect on invasive breast cancer was assumed, the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene worsened markedly and was not cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay of US $50,000. At fracture risk of 15-19.9% raloxifene was cost-effective also in women at lower invasive breast cancer risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Raloxifene is potentially cost-effective in cohorts of young postmenopausal women, who do not meet the suggested NOF 10-year fracture risk threshold. The cost-effectiveness is contingent on their 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. The result highlights the importance of considering a woman's full risk profile when considering anti-osteoporosis treatment.

Development of a prototype clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management: a qualitative study of focus groups

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide, and represents a significant cost burden. Although guidelines are available for best practice in osteoporosis, evidence indicates that patients are not receiving appropriate diagnostic testing or treatment according to guidelines. The use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may be one solution because they can facilitate knowledge translation by providing high-quality evidence at the point of care. Findings from a systematic review of osteoporosis interventions and consultation with clinical and human factors engineering experts were used to develop a conceptual model of an osteoporosis tool. We conducted a qualitative study of focus groups to better understand physicians' perceptions of CDSSs and to transform the conceptual osteoporosis tool into a functional prototype that can support clinical decision making in osteoporosis disease management at the point of care.

METHODS

The conceptual design of the osteoporosis tool was tested in 4 progressive focus groups with family physicians and general internists. An iterative strategy was used to qualitatively explore the experiences of physicians with CDSSs; and to find out what features, functions, and evidence should be included in a working prototype. Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide using an iterative process where results of the first focus group informed changes to the questions for subsequent focus groups and to the conceptual tool design. Transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

Of the 3 broad categories of themes that were identified, major barriers related to the accuracy and feasibility of extracting bone mineral density test results and medications from the risk assessment questionnaire; using an electronic input device such as a Tablet PC in the waiting room; and the importance of including well-balanced information in the patient education component of the osteoporosis tool. Suggestions for modifying the tool included the addition of a percentile graph showing patients' 10-year risk for osteoporosis or fractures, and ensuring that the tool takes no more than 5 minutes to complete.

CONCLUSIONS

Focus group data revealed the facilitators and barriers to using the osteoporosis tool at the point of care so that it can be optimized to aid physicians in their clinical decision making.

Cost-utility of Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) compared with corticosteroids for the treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) in Canada

Objectives

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has demonstrated improvement in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) patients in placebo controlled trials. However, IVIG is also much more expensive than alternative treatments such as corticosteroids. The objective of the paper is to evaluate, from a Canadian perspective, the cost-effectiveness of IVIG compared to corticosteroid treatment of CIDP.

Methods

A markov model was used to evaluate the costs and QALYs for IVIG and corticosteroids over 5 years of treatment for CIDP. Patients initially responding to IVIG could remain a responder or relapse every 12 week model cycle. Non-responding IVIG patients were assumed to be switched to corticosteroids. Patients on corticosteroids were at risk of a number of adverse events (fracture, diabetes, glaucoma, cataract, serious infection) in each cycle.

Results

Over the 5 year time horizon, the model estimated the incremental costs and QALYs of IVIG treatment compared to corticosteroid treatment to be $124,065 and 0.177 respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained of IVIG was estimated to be $687,287. The cost per QALY of IVIG was sensitive to the assumptions regarding frequency and dosing of maintenance IVIG.

Conclusions

Based on common willingness to pay thresholds, IVIG would not be perceived as a cost effective treatment for CIDP.

Risedronate versus alendronate in older patients with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture: an Italian cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of risedronate vs generic alendronate is based on effectiveness data from a large real practice study. Applying a published cost-effectiveness model, we found that risedronate is cost-effective vs generic alendronate in an Italian population aged > or =65 years, and becomes dominant, saving costs and avoiding fractures, in patients aged > or =75 years. The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness and health utility of risedronate vs generic alendronate in clinical practice in Italy, using effectiveness data from the REAL study.

METHODS

A pre-existing model of osteoporosis was used to predict numbers of fractures, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs associated with risedronate or alendronate treatment in post-menopausal (PMO) women aged > or =65 years with a previous vertebral fracture, within the Italian National Health System (NHS). Duration of treatment with risedronate or alendronate was assumed to occur for one year and patients were followed for an additional five years to capture longterm costs and outcomes, with a discount rate of 3% for costs and outcomes. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were run.

RESULTS

The lower fracture rate among risedronate patients with respect to alendronate patients resulted in savings of euro 19,083, a reduction of 8.91 hip fractures and an associated benefit of 7.46 QALYs, in an Italian cohort of 1,000 patients. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic analysis showed that risedronate is a cost-effective treatment in a population of Italian women aged 65 years and older at high risk of PMO-related fractures. Risedronate becomes dominant over generic alendronate in patients of 75 years or older and its cost-effectiveness even appears improved in patients with BMD score < or = -3 or < or = -3.5, with/without maternal history of fractures. Risedronate should be considered as a cost-effective option vs generic alendronate, in the Italian NHS' perspective.

Adherence to weekly oral bisphosphonate therapy: cost of wasted drugs and fractures

In an observational cohort of patients treated with biphosphonates (BP), we observed that poor adherence to these drugs causes important expenditures in terms of avoidable fractures. Of particular interest are the amounts of money wasted by patients who did not take their BPs long enough to obtain a clinical benefit.

INTRODUCTION

A large proportion of patients initiated with oral weekly BP therapy stop their treatment within the first year. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of the poor adherence to BPs in terms of drug wasted and avoidable fractures.

METHODS

The study was done on primary and secondary prevention cohorts from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (Québec). The concept of the "point of visual divergence" was used to determine the amount of wasted drug. The risk of fracture was estimated using Cox regression models. The hazard ratios of compliant patients (+80%) versus non compliant patients were used to estimate the number of fractures saved.

RESULTS

The cost of wasted drugs was $25.87 per patient initiated in the primary prevention cohort and $30.52 in the secondary prevention cohort. If all patients had been compliant, 110 fractures would have been avoided in the primary prevention cohort and 19 fractures in the secondary prevention cohort. The cost of these avoidable fractures per patient initiated on BP therapy was $62.95 in primary prevention cohort and $330.84 in secondary prevention cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that poor adherence to oral BPs leads to a significant waste of money and avoidable fractures.

Community-based randomised controlled trial evaluating falls and osteoporosis risk management strategies

Background

Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant public health concern. Interventions that increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis, as well as prevention of fractures and falls, are substantially underutilized. This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial of a multifaceted community-based care program aimed at optimizing the evidence-based management of falls and fractures in patients at risk.

Design

6-month randomised controlled study.

Methods

This population-based study was completed in the Algoma District of Ontario, Canada a geographically vast area with Sault Ste Marie (population 78 000) as its main city. Eligible patients were allocated to an immediate intervention protocol (IP) group, or a delayed intervention protocol (DP) group. The DP group received usual care for 6 months and then was crossed over to receive the interventions. Components of the intervention were directed at the physicians and their patients and included patient-specific recommendations for osteoporosis therapy as outlined by the clinical practice guidelines developed by Osteoporosis Canada, and falls risk assessment and treatment. Two primary outcomes were measured including implementation of appropriate osteoporosis and falls risk management. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and the number of falls, fractures, and hospital admissions over a twelve-month period. The patient is the unit of allocation and analysis. Analyses will be performed on an intention to treat basis.

Discussion

This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial of a multi-faceted, community-based intervention to optimize the implementation of evidence based management for patients at risk for falls and osteoporosis.

Trial Registration

This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT00465387)

Simulation-based cost-utility analysis of population screening-based alendronate use in Switzerland

A simulation model adopting a health system perspective showed population-based screening with DXA, followed by alendronate treatment of persons with osteoporosis, or with anamnestic fracture and osteopenia, to be cost-effective in Swiss postmenopausal women from age 70, but not in men.

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a population-based screen-and-treat strategy for osteoporosis (DXA followed by alendronate treatment if osteoporotic, or osteopenic in the presence of fracture), compared to no intervention, from the perspective of the Swiss health care system.

METHODS

A published Markov model assessed by first-order Monte Carlo simulation was refined to reflect the diagnostic process and treatment effects. Women and men entered the model at age 50. Main screening ages were 65, 75, and 85 years. Age at bone densitometry was flexible for persons fracturing before the main screening age. Realistic assumptions were made with respect to persistence with intended 5 years of alendronate treatment. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

In women, costs per QALY were Swiss francs (CHF) 71,000, CHF 35,000, and CHF 28,000 for the main screening ages of 65, 75, and 85 years. The threshold of CHF 50,000 per QALY was reached between main screening ages 65 and 75 years. Population-based screening was not cost-effective in men.

CONCLUSION

Population-based DXA screening, followed by alendronate treatment in the presence of osteoporosis, or of fracture and osteopenia, is a cost-effective option in Swiss postmenopausal women after age 70.

Cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding the cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene, alendronate and conservative care in this population.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation model to assess the incremental cost and effectiveness of raloxifene and alendronate relative to conservative care. We assumed a societal perspective and a lifetime time horizon. We examined clinical scenarios involving postmenopausal women from 55 to 75 years of age with bone mineral density T-scores ranging from -1.0 to -2.4. Modeled health events included vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, invasive breast cancer, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Raloxifene and alendronate were assumed to reduce the incidence of vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures; raloxifene was assumed to decrease the incidence of breast cancer and increase the incidence of VTEs. Cost-effectiveness is reported in $/QALYs gained.

RESULTS

For women 55 to 60 years of age with a T-score of -1.8, raloxifene cost approximately $50,000/QALY gained relative to conservative care. Raloxifene was less cost-effective for women 65 and older. At all ages, alendronate was both more expensive and less effective than raloxifene. In most clinical scenarios, raloxifene conferred a greater benefit (in QALYs) from prevention of invasive breast cancer than from fracture prevention. Results were most sensitive to the population's underlying risk of fracture and breast cancer, assumed efficacy and costs of treatment, and the discount rate.

CONCLUSION

For 55 and 60 year old women with osteopenia, treatment with raloxifene compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective.