Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:25:26.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TECHNIQUES FOR DIAGNOSING OSTEOPOROSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Davide Minniti ,
Ottavio Davini ,
Maria Rosaria Gualano  and
Maria Michela Gianino
Davide Minniti
Affiliation:
Health Service Organization, Turin, Italy
Ottavio Davini
Affiliation:
Emergency Radiology Division, San Giovanni Battista University Hospital
Maria Rosaria Gualano
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, University of Turin, Italymariarosaria.gualano@unito.it
Maria Michela Gianino
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, University of Turin, Italymariarosaria.gualano@unito.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The study question was whether dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) alone is more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis than a two-step procedure with quantitative ultrasound sonography (QUS) plus DXA. To answer this question, a systematic review was performed.

Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, INAHTA, Health Evidence Network, NIHR, the Health Technology Assessment program, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, Web of Science, Scopus, and EconLit) were searched for cost-effectiveness publications. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using the Drummond checklist.

Results: Seven journal articles and four reports were reviewed. The cost per true positive case diagnosed by DXA was found to be higher than that for diagnosis by QUS+DXA in two articles. In one article it was found to be lower. In three studies, the results were not conclusive. These articles were characterized by the differences in the types of devices, parameters and thresholds on the QUS and DXA tests and the unit costs of the DXA and QUS tests as well as by variability in the sensitivity and specificity of the techniques and the prevalence of osteoporosis.

Conclusions: The publications reviewed did not provide clear-cut evidence for drawing conclusions about which screening test may be more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Keywords

Comparative cost analysisosteoporosisdiagnosiseconomic evaluation
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 3: Theme: Adaptive Approaches to Licensing , July 2014 , pp. 273 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 2001;285:785–795.Google Scholar
2. Gambacciani, M, De Aloysio, D, Elia, D, et al. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of bone in the management of postmenopausal women. Maturitas. 2004;20;47:139–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. National Osteoporosis Foundation. About osteoporosis: Fast facts. 2005. Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis Foundation.Google Scholar
4. Nelson, HD, Helfand, M, Woolf, SH, et al. Screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:529–541.Google Scholar
5. Cooper, C, Campion, G, Melton, LJ III. Hip fractures in the elderly: A world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int. 1992;2:285–289.Google Scholar
6. Marshall, D, Johnell, O, Wedel, H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrance of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ. 1996;312:1254–1259.Google Scholar
7. McCloskey, EV, Johansson, H, Oden, A, et al. From relative risk to absolute fracture risk calculation: The FRAX algorithm. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2009;7:77–83.Google Scholar
8. Kanis, JA, McCloskey, EV, Johansson, H, et al. Development and use of FRAX in osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int. 2010;21 (Suppl 2):S407–S413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Lakatos, P, Balogh, A, Czerwinski, E, et al. New considerations on the management of osteoporosis in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE): Summary of the “3rd Summit on Osteoporosis-CEE”, November 2009, Budapest, Hungary. Arch Osteoporos. 2011;6:1–12.Google Scholar
10. WHO Study Group. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1994;843:1–129.Google Scholar
11. Genant, HK, Faulkner, KG, Gluer, CC, et al. Bone densitometry: Current assessment. Osteoporosis Int. 1993;51:91–97.Google Scholar
12. Lewiecki, EM, Richmond, B, Miller, PD. Uses and misuses of quantitative ultrasonography in managing osteoporosis. Cleve Clin J Med. 2006;73:742–746; 749–752.Google Scholar
13. Nayak, S, Olkin, I, Liu, H, et al. Meta-analysis: accuracy of quantitative ultrasound for identifying patients with osteoporosis. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:832–841.Google Scholar
14. Faulkner, KG, von Stetten, E, Miller, P. Discordance in patient classification using T-scores. J Clin Densitom. 1999;2:343–350.Google Scholar
15. MacLaughlin, EJ, MacLaughlin, AA, Snella, KA, et al. Osteoporosis screening and education community pharmacies using a team approach. Pharmacotherapy. 2005;25:379–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Marín, F, González-Macías, J, Díez-Pérez, A, et al. Relationship between bone quantitative ultrasound and fractures: a meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res. 2006;21:1126–1135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Schousboe, JT, Gourlay, ML. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies to screen for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:788–789.Google Scholar
18. Nayak, S, Roberts, M, Greenspan, S. Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:751–761.Google Scholar
19. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;21;6.Google Scholar
20. Gianino, MM, Galzerano, M, Tizzani, A, et al. Critical issues in current comparative and cost analyses between retropubic and robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008;101:2–3.Google Scholar
21. Gianino, MM, Galzerano, M, Minniti, D, et al. A comparative costs analysis of brachytherapy and radical retropubic prostatectomy therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:411–414.Google Scholar
22. Leib, ES, Lewiecki, EM, Binkley, N, et al. Official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. J Clin Densitom. 2004;7:1–6.Google Scholar
23. Drummond, M, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
24. WHO Study Group. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1994;843:1–129.Google Scholar
25. Trading Economic.com. Economic data for 196 countries. 2012. http://www.tradingeconomics.com (accessed December 12, 2012).Google Scholar
26. UK National Statistics. Publication hub. 2012. http://www.statistics.gov.uk (accessed December 12, 2012).Google Scholar
27. BCE: The European Central Bank. 2012. www.ecb.int (accessed December 12, 2012).Google Scholar
28. Langton, CM, Ballard, PA, Langton, DK, et al. Maximising the cost-effectiveness of BMD referral for DXA using ultrasound as a selective population pre-screen. Technol Health Care. 1997;5:235–241.Google Scholar
29. Langton, CM, Langton, DK, Beardsworth, SA. Comparison of accuracy and cost-effectiveness of clinical criteria and BUA for referral for BMD assessment by DXA in osteoporotic and osteopenic perimenopausal subjects. Technol Health Care. 1999;7:319–330.Google Scholar
30. Marín, F, López-Bastida, J, Díez-Pérez, A, et al. Bone mineral density referral for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry using quantitative ultrasound as a prescreening tool in postmenopausal women from the general population: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2004;74:277–283.Google Scholar
31. Sim, MF, Stone, M, Johansen, A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of BMD referral for DXA using ultrasound as a selective pre-screen in a group of women with low trauma Colles’ fractures. Technol Health Care. 2000;8:277–284.Google Scholar
32. Sim, MF, Stone, MD, Phillips, CJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of using quantitative ultrasound as a selective pre-screen for bone densitometry. Technol Health Care. 2005;13:75–85.Google Scholar
33. Kraemer, DF, Nelson, HD, Bauer, DC, et al. Economic comparison of diagnostic approaches for evaluating osteoporosis in older women. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:68–76.Google Scholar
34. Hiligsmann, M, Ethgen, O, Bruyere, O, et al. An economic evaluation of quantitative ultrasonometry as pre-screening test for the identification of patients with osteoporosis. Dis Manag Health Outcomes. 2008;16:429–438.Google Scholar
35. Schousboe, JT. Cost effectiveness of screen-and-treat strategies for low bone mineral density: How do we screen, who do we screen and who do we treat? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2008;6:1–18.Google Scholar
36. Langton, C, Njeh, C. The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. A review of the science and technology. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008;55:1546–1554.Google Scholar
37. Njeh, CF, Hans, D, Fuerst, T, et al. Quantitative ultrasound: Assessment of osteoporosis and bone status. London: Martin Dunitz, Ltd; 1999.Google Scholar
38. Alton, V. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. INAHTA Brief issue: 2003/70 http://www.sbu.se/upload/Publikationer/Content1/1/Eng_Osteoporos.pdf (accessed December 14, 2012).Google Scholar
39. Homik, J, Hailey, D. Quantitative ultrasound for bone density measurement. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, 1998. http://www.ihe.ca/hta/hta_unit.html, bibliographic data drawn from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=31999008037 (accessed December 14, 2012).Google Scholar
40. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Densitometry as a diagnostic tool for the identification and treatment of osteoporosis in women. Bloomington MN: Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement; 2000 http://www.icsi.org/index.asp, bibliographic data drawn from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=32003000546 (accessed December 14, 2012).Google Scholar
41. Dunfield, L, Mierzwinski-Urban, M, Hodgson, A, et al. Diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of technologies to measure bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. (Technology report number 94). Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2007.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Minniti Supplementary Material

Table S1

Download Minniti Supplementary Material(File)
File 29.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Minniti Supplementary Material

Table S2

Download Minniti Supplementary Material(File)
File 40.4 KB