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
Osteoporosis International
Published in: Osteoporosis International 10/2021

01-10-2021 | Osteoporosis | Original Article

Development and validation of the risk engine for an Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis

Authors: L. Si, J. A. Eisman, T. Winzenberg, K. M. Sanders, J. R. Center, T. V. Nguyen, T. Tran, A. J. Palmer

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 10/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

The Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis (AusHEMO) has shown good face, internal and cross validities, and can be used to assist healthcare decision-making in Australia.

Purpose

This study aimed to document and validate the risk engine of the Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis (AusHEMO).

Methods

AusHEMO is a state-transition microsimulation model. The fracture risks were simulated using fracture incidence rates from the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study. The AusHEMO was validated regarding its face, internal and cross validities. Goodness-of-fit analysis was conducted and Lin’s coefficient of agreement and mean absolute difference with 95% limits of agreement were reported.

Results

The development of AusHEMO followed general and osteoporosis-specific health economics guidelines. AusHEMO showed good face validity regarding the model’s structure, evidence, problem formulation and results. In addition, the model has been proven good internal and cross validities in goodness-of-fit test. Lin’s coefficient was 0.99, 1 and 0.94 for validation against the fracture incidence rates, Australian life expectancies and residual lifetime fracture risks, respectively.

Conclusions

In summary, the development of the risk engine of AusHEMO followed the best practice for osteoporosis disease modelling and the model has been shown to have good face, internal and cross validities. The AusHEMO can be confidently used to predict long-term fracture-related outcomes and health economic evaluations when costs data are included. Health policy-makers in Australia can use the AusHEMO to select which osteoporosis interventions such as medications and public health interventions represent good value for money.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136CrossRef
2.
Si L, Winzenberg TM, Jiang Q, Chen M, Palmer AJ (2015) Projection of osteoporosis-related fractures and costs in China: 2010–2050. Osteoporos Int 26:1929–1937CrossRef
3.
Watts JJ, Abimanyi-Ochom J, Sanders KM (2013) Osteoporosis costing all Australian: a newburden of disease analysis - 2012 to 2022. Osteoporosis Australia, Melbourne, Vic. Australia
4.
Tatangelo G, Watts J, Lim K, Connaughton C, Abimanyi-Ochom J, Borgström F, Nicholson GC, Shore-Lorenti C, Stuart AL, Iuliano-Burns S, Seeman E, Prince R, March L, Cross M, Winzenberg T, Laslett LL, Duque G, Ebeling PR, Sanders KM (2019) The Cost of osteoporosis, osteopenia, and associated fractures in Australia in 2017. J Bone Miner Res 34:616–625CrossRef
5.
Nakayama A, Major G, Holliday E, Attia J, Bogduk N (2016) Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. Osteoporos Int 27:873–879CrossRef
6.
MacLean C, Newberry S, Maglione M, McMahon M, Ranganath V, Suttorp M, Mojica W, Timmer M, Alexander A, McNamara M (2008) Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of treatments to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis. Ann Intern Med 148:197–213CrossRef
7.
Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ (2009) Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 302:1437–1443CrossRef
8.
Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S (2011) Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. Oxford University Press
9.
Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, Prince RL, Sheldon TA, Szucs T, Vray M (1997) Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 6:217–227CrossRef
10.
Si L, Winzenberg T, Palmer A (2014) A systematic review of models used in cost-effectiveness analyses of preventing osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 25:51–60CrossRef
11.
Hiligsmann M, Evers SM, Ben Sedrine W, Kanis JA, Ramaekers B, Reginster J-Y, Silverman S, Wyers CE, Boonen A (2015) A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis. PharmacoEconomics 33:205–224CrossRef
12.
Yong JH, Masucci L, Hoch JS, Sujic R, Beaton D (2016) Cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service—a real-world evaluation after 6 years of service provision. Osteoporos Int 27:231–240CrossRef
13.
Cooper MS, Palmer AJ, Seibel MJ (2012) Cost-effectiveness of the Concord Minimal Trauma Fracture Liaison service, a prospective, controlled fracture prevention study. Osteoporos Int 23:97–107CrossRef
14.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E (2013) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health 16:e1–e5CrossRef
15.
Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY, Tosteson ANA, et al. Si L, Silverman S (2019) Recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis: outcomes of an experts' consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the US branch of the International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 30(1):45–57
16.
Li N, Cornelissen D, Silverman S et al (2020) An updated systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for osteoporosis. PharmacoEconomics
17.
Karnon J, Shafie AS, Orji N, Usman SK (2016) What are we paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of patented denosumab and generic alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Australia. Cost Effect Resour Allocation 14:11CrossRef
18.
19.
Karikios DJ, Chim L, Martin A, Nagrial A, Howard K, Salkeld G, Stockler MR (2017) Is it all about price? Why requests for government subsidy of anticancer drugs were rejected in Australia. Intern Med J 47:400–407CrossRef
20.
Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, Minshall ME, Foos V, Lurati FM, Lammert M, Spinas GA (2004) Validation of the CORE Diabetes Model against epidemiological and clinical studies. Curr Med Res Opin 20(Suppl 1):S27–S40CrossRef
21.
Si L, Eisman JA, Winzenberg T, Sanders KM, Center JR, Nguyen TV, Palmer AJ (2019) Microsimulation model for the health economic evaluation of osteoporosis interventions: study protocol. BMJ Open 9:e028365CrossRef
22.
Bliuc D, Alarkawi D, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, Center JR (2015) Risk of subsequent fractures and mortality in elderly women and men with fragility fractures with and without osteoporotic bone density: the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study. J Bone Miner Res 30:637–646CrossRef
23.
Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359:1929–1936CrossRef
24.
Henry MJ, Pasco JA, Nicholson GC, Seeman E, Kotowicz MA (2000) Prevalence of osteoporosis in Australian women: Geelong Osteoporosis Study. J Clin Densitometry 3:261–268CrossRef
25.
Si L, Winzenberg TM, Jiang Q, Palmer AJ (2015) Screening for and treatment of osteoporosis: construction and validation of a state-transition microsimulation cost-effectiveness model. Osteoporos Int 26:1477–1489CrossRef
26.
Jones G, Nguyen T, Sambrook PN, Kelly PJ, Gilbert C, Eisman JA (1994) Symptomatic fracture incidence in elderly men and women: the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study (DOES). Osteoporos Int 4:277–282CrossRef
27.
Center JR (2017) Fracture burden: what two and a half decades of Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study data reveal about clinical outcomes of osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 15:88–95CrossRef
28.
Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Milch VE, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, Center JR (2009) Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women. Jama 301:513–521CrossRef
29.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) Life tables, states, territories and Australia, 2014–2016
30.
Podgor MJ, Leske MC (1986) Estimating incidence from age-specific prevalence for irreversible diseases with differential mortality. Stat Med 5:573–578CrossRef
31.
Brinks R, Bardenheier BH, Hoyer A, Lin J, Landwehr S, Gregg EW (2015) Development and demonstration of a state model for the estimation of incidence of partly undetected chronic diseases. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:98CrossRef
32.
Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB (2012) Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Value Health 15:843–850CrossRef
33.
McHaney R (1991) Computer simulation: a practical perspective. Academic Press
34.
Nguyen ND, Ahlborg HG, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2007) Residual lifetime risk of fractures in women and men. J Bone Miner Res 22:781–788CrossRef
35.
Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res 154:136–136
36.
Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268CrossRef
37.
McBride GB (2005) A proposal for strength-of-agreement criteria for Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient. NIWA Client Report: HAM2005-062. Hamilton, New Zealand
38.
Mai HT, Tran TS, Ho-Le TP, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2019) Two-thirds of all fractures are not attributable to osteoporosis and advancing age: implication for fracture prevention. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 104(8):3514–3520
39.
Hiligsmann M, Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Gathon HJ, Reginster JY (2009) Development and validation of a Markov microsimulation model for the economic evaluation of treatments in osteoporosis. Value Health 12:687–696CrossRef
40.
Gauthier A, Kanis JA, Martin M, Compston J, Borgstrom F, Cooper C, McCloskey E (2011) Development and validation of a disease model for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 22:771–780CrossRef
41.
Palmer AJ, Si L, Tew M, Hua X, Willis MS, Asseburg C, McEwan P, Leal J, Gray A, Foos V, Lamotte M, Feenstra T, O’Connor PJ, Brandle M, Smolen HJ, Gahn JC, Valentine WJ, Pollock RF, Breeze P, Brennan A, Pollard D, Ye W, Herman WH, Isaman DJ, Kuo S, Laiteerapong N, Tran-Duy A, Clarke PM (2018) Computer modeling of diabetes and its transparency: a report on the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge. Value Health 21:724–731CrossRef
42.
Degeling K, Franken MD, May AM, van Oijen MGH, Koopman M, Punt CJA, IJ MJ, Koffijberg H (2018) Matching the model with the evidence: comparing discrete event simulation and state-transition modeling for time-to-event predictions in a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol 57:60–67CrossRef
43.
Borgstrom F, Lekander I, Ivergard M et al (2013) The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS)—quality of life during the first 4 months after fracture. Osteoporos Int 24:811–823CrossRef
44.
Abimanyi-Ochom J, Watts JJ, Borgstrom F et al (2015) Changes in quality of life associated with fragility fractures: Australian arm of the International Cost and Utility Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (AusICUROS). Osteoporos Int 26:1781–1790CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Development and validation of the risk engine for an Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis
Authors
L. Si
J. A. Eisman
T. Winzenberg
K. M. Sanders
J. R. Center
T. V. Nguyen
T. Tran
A. J. Palmer
Publication date
01-10-2021
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 10/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-021-05955-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2021

Osteoporosis International 10/2021 Go to the issue

Original Article

Early clinical effects, safety, and predictors of the effects of romosozumab treatment in osteoporosis patients: one-year study

Original Article

Impact of population-based or targeted BMD interventions on fracture incidence

Publisher Correction

Correction to: A randomized, controlled trial of once-weekly teriparatide injection versus alendronate in patients at high risk of osteoporotic fracture: primary results of the Japanese osteoporosis intervention Trial-05

Case Report

Long-term evaluation of anabolic and anti-resorptive agents in adults with familial osteoporosis due to pro205ala variant of the col1a1 gene

Original Article

Alendronate use in older patients with reduced renal function: challenges and opportunities in clinical practice

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor about the article “C-reactive protein and fracture risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies through the use of both frequentist and Bayesian approaches”