Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 6/2008

01-06-2008 | Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of the German Screen-and-Treat Strategy for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Authors: Dirk Mueller, Eva Weyler, Dr Afschin Gandjour

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 6/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The German osteology umbrella organization, Dachverband Osteologie (DVO), has published a new guideline for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. According to the guideline, women are screened using dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Those with an absolute 10-year fracture risk ≥30% are treated with bisphosphonates such as alendronate or risedronate for 4 years or with teriparatide for 18 months.

Objective

To determine the cost effectiveness of the screen-and-treat strategy versus no intervention in women of the general population aged 50–90 years in Germany.

Methods

Cost-utility and budget-impact analyses were performed from the perspective of the statutory health insurance (SHI). A Markov model with a 1-year cycle length simulated costs and benefits (QALYs), discounted at 3%, over a lifetime horizon. The number of women correctly diagnosed by pre-tests and DXA as having a 10-year fracture risk of ≥30% was estimated for different age groups (50–60, 60–70, 70–80 and 80–90 years). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated; all costs are presented in €, year 2006 values. Robustness of the results was tested by a probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation.

Results

Alendronate was the most cost-effective drug in all age groups; the ICERs were €3849, €16 589, €6600 and €2337 per QALY for 50-, 60-, 70- and 80-year-old women, respectively, followed by risedronate. Teriparatide was dominated in every age group. Implementing the screen-and-treat strategy would result in annual costs of €175 million for alendronate (€181 million for risedronate) or 0.14% of the SHI annual budget. Results were robust in the sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

While the screen-and-treat strategy would result in a substantial cost increase for the SHI, the use of alendronate within such a strategy appears cost effective when compared with many generally accepted medical interventions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Fracture risk can be expressed as a gradient of risk; for example, the risk of fracture increases exponentially with decreasing BMD.
 
2
Patients with a hip fracture are always hospitalized.[43]
 
Literature
1.
2.
Cummings SR, Bates D, Black DM. Clinical use of bone densitometry. JAMA 2002; 288 (15): 1889–1897PubMedCrossRef
3.
WHO Study Group. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1994; 843: 1–129
4.
Kanis JA, Delmas PD, Burckhardt P, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease. Osteoporosis Int 1997; 7: 390–406CrossRef
5.
6.
7.
American College of Radiology. Expert panel on musculoskeletal imaging, osteoporosis and bone mineral density: ACR appropriateness criteria. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology, 2001
8.
9.
Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, DeLaet C, et al. Assessment of fracture risk. Osteoporosis Int 2005; 16: 581–589CrossRef
10.
Siris ES, Chen YT, Abbot TA, et al. Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Int Med 2004; 164 (10): 1108–1112CrossRef
11.
Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H, et al. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 1996; 312: 1254–1259PubMedCrossRef
12.
Kanis JA. Prediction of fracture from low bone mineral density measurements overestimates risks. Bone 2000; 26: 387–391PubMedCrossRef
13.
De Laet C, Oden A, Johansson H, et al. The impact of the use of multiple risk indicators for fracture on case-funding strategies: a mathematical approach. Osteoporosis Int 2005; 16: 313–318CrossRef
14.
15.
16.
17.
Brecht JG, Kruse P, Felsenberg D, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of osteoporosis treatment with risedronate. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 2003; 24: 1–10
18.
Brecht JG, Kruse HP, Mohrke W, et al. Health-economic comparison of three recommended drugs for the treatment of osteoporosis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 2004; 24 (1): 1–10PubMed
19.
20.
Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH. Clinical epidemiology: the essentials. 3rd ed. Baltimore (MD): Williams and Wilkins, 1996
21.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
22.
23.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, DeLaet C, et al. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 2005; 35: 375–382CrossRef
24.
Center JR, Bliuc D, Nguyen TV, et al. Risk of subsequent fracture after low-trauma fracture in men and women. JAMA 2007; 297 (4): 387–394PubMedCrossRef
25.
Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 16; 276 (15): 1253–1258CrossRef
26.
27.
Tosteson ANA, Jönsson B, Grima DT, et al. Challenges for model-based economic evaluations of postmenopausal osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporosis Int 2001; 12: 849–857CrossRef
28.
Boonen S, Laan RF, Barton IP, et al. Effect of osteoporosis treatments of non-vertebral fractures: review and meta-analysis of intention-to-treat studies. Osteoporosis Int 2005; 16: 1291–1298CrossRef
29.
Stevenson M, Jones ML, De Nigris E, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Health Technol Assess 2005; (22): 1–60
30.
Liberman UA, Weiss SR, Broil J, et al. Effect of oral alendronate on bone mineral density and the incidence of fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The Alendronate Phase III Osteoporosis Treatment Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1437–1443PubMedCrossRef
31.
Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, et al. Randomized trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Lancet 1996; 348: 1535–1541PubMedCrossRef
32.
Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, et al. Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 1998; 80: 2077–2082CrossRef
33.
McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD, et al. Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 333–340PubMedCrossRef
34.
Reginster J, Minne HW, Sorensen OH. Randomized trial of the effects of risedronate on vertebral fractures in women with established postmenopausal osteoporosis. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. Osteoporosis Int 2000; 11: 83–91CrossRef
35.
Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK, et al. Effect of risedronate treatment on vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. JAMA 1999; 282: 1344–1352PubMedCrossRef
36.
Greenland S, Robbins JM. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 1985; 41: 55–68PubMedCrossRef
37.
Neer RM, Arnaud CD, Zanchetta JR, et al. Effect of parathyroid hormone (1-34) on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1434–1441PubMedCrossRef
38.
Woo SB, Hellstein JW, Kalmar JR. Biphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaw. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144 (10): 753–761PubMed
39.
Black DM, Schwartz AV, Ensrud KE. Effects of continuing or stopping alendronate after 5 years of treatment: the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension (FLEX). A randomized trial. JAMA 2006 Dec 27; 296 (24): 2927–2938PubMedCrossRef
40.
O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J, et al. The prevalence of vertebral deformity in European men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 1996; 11 (7): 1010–1018PubMedCrossRef
41.
van der Klift M, DeLaet CE. The incidence of vertebral fractures in men and women: the Rotterdam Study. J Bone Miner Res 2002; 17 (6): 1051–1056PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
Scheidt-Nave C. The public health impact of osteoporosis. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2001; 44: 41–51CrossRef
44.
Melton LJ, Thamer M, Ray NF, et al. Fractures attributable to osteoporosis: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. J Bone Miner Res 1997; 12 (1): 16–23PubMedCrossRef
45.
Felsenberg D, Silman AJ, Lunt M, et al. Incidence of vertebral fracture in Europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 2002; 17 (4): 716–723PubMedCrossRef
46.
Singer BR, McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, et al. Epidemiology of fractures in 15 000 adults: the influence of age and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 243–248PubMedCrossRef
47.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. Ten-year risk of osteoporotic fracture and the effect of risk factors on screening strategies. Bone 2002; 30 (1): 251–258PubMedCrossRef
48.
49.
Browner WS, Seeley DG, Vogt TM, et al. Non-trauma mortality in elderly women with low bone mineral density. Lancet 1991; 338 (10): 355–358PubMedCrossRef
50.
Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D, et al. Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 1999; 353: 872–882CrossRef
51.
Kado DM, Browner WS, Palermo L, et al. Vertebral fractures and mortality in older women. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 1215–1220PubMedCrossRef
52.
Gandjour A, Weyler EJ. Cost-effectiveness of referrals to high-volume hospitals: an analysis based on a probabilistic Markov model for hip fracture surgeries. Health Care Manage Sci 2006; 9: 359–369CrossRef
53.
Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA. A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporosis Int 2002; 13: 768–776CrossRef
54.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A. The risk and burden of vertebral fractures in Sweden. Osteoporosis Int 2004; 15: 20–26CrossRef
55.
Schousboe JT, Ensrud KE, Nyman JA, et al. Universal bone densitometry screening combined with alendronate therapy for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is highly cost-effective for elderly women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53: 1697–1670PubMedCrossRef
56.
Deeks JJ. Using evaluations of diagnostic tests: understanding their limitations and making the most of available evidence. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 761–768PubMedCrossRef
57.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allegemein- und Familienmedizin (DEGAM). Kreuzschmerzen (2003) [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​degam.​de [Accessed 2006 Jun 14]
58.
Neuhauser H, Ellert U, Ziese T. Chronic back pain in the general population in Germany 2002/2003: prevalence and highly affected population groups. Gesundheitswesen 2005; 67 (10): 685–693PubMedCrossRef
59.
60.
Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM, et al. Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res 1992; 7: 221–227PubMedCrossRef
61.
Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, et al. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 2005 Apr; 20 (4): 557–563PubMedCrossRef
62.
National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF). Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis and treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis. Osteoporosis Int 1998; 8 Suppl. 4: 7–80CrossRef
63.
Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 767–773PubMedCrossRef
64.
Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray TM, et al. Evaluation of decision rules of referring woman for bone densitometry by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. JAMA 2001; 286 (1): 57–63PubMedCrossRef
65.
66.
67.
Zentralinstitut für Kassenärztliche Versorgung. ZI_ADT-Panel Nordrhein, Patienten- / Praxisstichprobe: IV / 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​zi-berlin.​de [Accessed 2006 Jun 13]
68.
69.
70.
71.
Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus (InEK). Abschlussbericht zur Weiterentwicklung des G-DRG- Systems für das Jahr 2004. Klassifikation, Katalog und Bewer-tungsrelationen. Band II: Fallpauschalenkatalog, klinische Profile, Kostenprofile [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​g-drg.​de [Accessed 2006 May 28]
72.
Wikipedia Contributors. Diagnosis-related group [online]. Available from URL: http://​en.​wikipedia.​org/​wiki/​Diagnosis-related_​group [Accessed 2008 Apr 19]
73.
Melo M, Qiu F, Sykora K, et al. Persistence with biphosphonate therapy in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006; 54 (6): 1015–1016PubMedCrossRef
74.
Bartl R, Götte S, Hadji P, et al. Adherence with daily and weekly administration of oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2006; 131: 1257–1262PubMedCrossRef
75.
Cramer JA, Amonkar MM, Hebborn A, et al. Compliance and persistence with biphosphonate dosing regimes among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21: 1453–1460PubMedCrossRef
76.
Penning-van Beest FJ, Goettsch WG, Erkens JA, et al. Determinants of persistence with bisphosphonates: a study in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Clin Ther 2006; 28 (2): 236–242CrossRef
77.
78.
Frybeck DG, Chinnis JO, Ulvila JW. Bayesian cost effectiveness analysis: an example using the GUSTO trial. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17 (1): 83–97CrossRef
79.
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Dec Making 1998; 18 Suppl.: S65–S80CrossRef
80.
van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–319PubMedCrossRef
81.
82.
Gandjour A, Stock S. A national hypertension treatment program in Germany and its estimated impact on costs, life expectancy, and cost-effectiveness. Health Policy 2007 Oct; 83 (2-3): 257–267PubMedCrossRef
83.
Compston FE, Seeman E. Compliance with osteoporosis therapy is the weakest link. Lancet 2006 Sep 16; 368 (9540): 973–974PubMedCrossRef
84.
Häussler B, Gothe H, Göl D. Epidemiology, treatment and costs of osteoporosis in Germany: the bone EVA study. Osteoporosis Int 2007; 18: 77–84CrossRef
85.
De Laet C, van Hout B, Burger H, et al. Incremental cost of medical care after hip fracture and first vertebral fracture: the Rotterdam study. Osteoporosis Int 1999; 10: 66–72CrossRef
86.
Lunt M, O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, et al. Characteristics of a prevalent vertebral deformity predict subsequent vertebral fracture: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Bone 2003; 33 (4): 505–513PubMedCrossRef
87.
Jacobsen S J, Cooper C, Gottlieb MS, et al. Hospitalisation with vertebral fracture among the aged: a national population-based study 1986–1989. Epidemiology 1992; 3 (6): 515–518PubMedCrossRef
88.
Proctor and Gamble Pharmaceuticals. Didronel post-marketing surveillance study: the effects of cyclical etidronate treatment in actual clinical practice [final report, study no. ED/41]. Cincinnati (OH): Proctor and Gamble Ph, 1996
89.
Chrischilles E, Shireman T, Wallace R. Costs and health effects of osteoporotic fractures. Bone 1994; 15 (4): 377–386PubMedCrossRef
90.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Zethraeus N, et al. Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis in the UK. Bone 2005; 36: 22–32PubMedCrossRef
91.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. Intervention thresholds for osteoporosis in men and women: a study based on data from Sweden. Osteoporosis Int 2005; 16: 6–14CrossRef
92.
Liu H, Michaud K, Nayak S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis. Arch Int Med 2006; 166: 1209–1217CrossRef
93.
94.
Nayak S, Olkin I, Liu H, et al. Meta-analysis: accuracy of quantitative ultrasound for identifying patients with osteoporosis. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 832–841PubMed
95.
Gafni A, Birch S. Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–296PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost Effectiveness of the German Screen-and-Treat Strategy for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis
Authors
Dirk Mueller
Eva Weyler
Dr Afschin Gandjour
Publication date
01-06-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 6/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826060-00005

Other articles of this Issue 6/2008

PharmacoEconomics 6/2008 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Cost-Utility Analysis of Varenicline versus Existing Smoking Cessation Strategies using the BENESCO Simulation Model

Leading Article

Economic Burden of Heart Failure in the Elderly

Review Article

Guidelines for Conducting Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analyses for Submission to Public Drug Plans in Canada

Review Article

Cost of Epilepsy