Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Arch Osteoporos. 2020 Mar 7;15(1):42. doi: 10.1007/s11657-020-00720-9.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions to improve osteoporosis care in France.

Author information

1
Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, HESPER EA 7425, F-69008, Lyon, France.
2
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pôle de Santé Publique, 69003, Lyon, France.
3
Department of Rheumatology, CHU Gabriel Montpied, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
4
INSERM UMR1033, Lyon, France.
5
Service de Rhumatologie et de Pathologie Osseuse, Groupement Hospitalier Edouard, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
6
Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, HESPER EA 7425, F-69008, Lyon, France. anne-marie.schott-pethelaz@chu-lyon.fr.
7
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pôle de Santé Publique, 69003, Lyon, France. anne-marie.schott-pethelaz@chu-lyon.fr.

Abstract

Osteoporosis (OP) is responsible for an important economic burden, but OP care is far from meeting therapeutic guidelines. Some interventions were effective to improve OP management. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Structural interventions and interventions consisting in sending educational material were dominant strategies.

PURPOSE:

Osteoporosis (OP) causes many osteoporotic fractures worldwide and an important economic burden as a result. OP care is far from meeting treatment guidelines, but in a recent meta-analysis, we showed that some interventions were effective to improve appropriate bone mineral density (BMD) and treatment prescriptions. In the context of limited resources, it is of major importance to measure these interventions' efficiency. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of existing effective intervention types.

METHODS:

We used a decision tree incorporating Markov models to compare costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life-years or QALYs) between usual care and three intervention types: structural (I), direct educational through conversation (II), and indirect educational by sending material (III). We adopted the collectivity perspective and chose a 30-year time horizon. The model included efficacy of interventions and risk of further fracture or death, depending on BMD T-score results and OP management, obtained from published literature. The model was populated to reflect a French setting. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Costs were presented in 2018 euros (€).

RESULTS:

Interventions type I and III were dominant strategies compared with usual care (cost-saving with a QALY gain). Our results were consistent through sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION:

Our results suggest that structural interventions and indirect interventions to improve OP care (BMD and OP treatment prescription), in women 50 years old with a first fragility fracture, were dominant strategies.

KEYWORDS:

Bone mineral density; Care; Intervention; Osteoporosis; Therapy prescription

PMID:
32146536
DOI:
10.1007/s11657-020-00720-9

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center