Potential cost-effective use of spine radiographs to detect vertebral deformity and select osteopenic post-menopausal women for amino-bisphosphonate therapy

A summary of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis

Key statements of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are summarized. They were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis and approved by the Russian Ministry of Health.

PURPOSE

To summarize key statements of the Russian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

The Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis: These comprised the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Orthopedic surgeons and Traumatologists of Russia, the Russian Association of Gynecologists-Endocrinologists, and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics. The guidelines are based on a systematic literature review and principles of evidence-based medicine and were compiled in accordance with the requirements for clinical recommendations developed by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.

RESULTS

Key statements included in the Russian guidelines of osteoporosis approved by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2021 are summarized. The statements are graded based on levels of evidence and supported by short comments. The guidelines are focused on the current approach to screening, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are a practical tool for general practitioners, as well as medical specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other physicians who are involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease in the USA and the world. It is a subclinical condition until complicated by fracture(s). These fractures place an enormous medical and personal burden on individuals who suffer from them and take a significant economic toll. Any new fracture in an adult aged 50 years or older signifies imminent elevated risk for subsequent fractures, particularly in the year following the initial fracture. What a patient perceives as an unfortunate accident may be seen as a sentinel event indicative of bone fragility and increased future fracture risk even when the result of considerable trauma. Clinical or subclinical vertebral fractures, the most common type of osteoporotic fractures, are associated with a 5-fold increased risk for additional vertebral fractures and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for fractures at other sites. Untreated osteoporosis can lead to a vicious cycle of recurrent fracture(s), often resulting in disability and premature death. In appropriate patients, treatment with effective antifracture medication prevents fractures and improves outcomes. Primary care providers and medical specialists are critical gatekeepers who can identify fractures and initiate proven osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporosis detection, diagnosis, and treatment should be routine practice in all adult healthcare settings. The Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation (BHOF) - formerly the National Osteoporosis Foundation - first published the Clinician's Guide in 1999 to provide accurate information on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Since that time, significant improvements have been made in diagnostic technologies and treatments for osteoporosis. Despite these advances, a disturbing gap persists in patient care. At-risk patients are often not screened to establish fracture probability and not educated about fracture prevention. Most concerning, the majority of highest risk women and men who have a fracture(s) are not diagnosed and do not receive effective, FDA-approved therapies. Even those prescribed appropriate therapy are unlikely to take the medication as prescribed. The Clinician's Guide offers concise recommendations regarding prevention, risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years and older. It includes indications for bone densitometry as well as fracture risk thresholds for pharmacologic intervention. Current medications build bone and/or decrease bone breakdown and dramatically reduce incident fractures. All antifracture therapeutics treat but do not cure the disease. Skeletal deterioration resumes sooner or later when a medication is discontinued-sooner for nonbisphosphonates and later for bisphosphonates. Even if normal BMD is achieved, osteoporosis and elevated risk for fracture are still present. The diagnosis of osteoporosis persists even if subsequent DXA T-scores are above - 2.5. Ongoing monitoring and strategic interventions will be necessary if fractures are to be avoided. In addition to pharmacotherapy, adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, avoidance of smoking and excessive alcohol intake, weight-bearing and resistance-training exercise, and fall prevention are included in the fracture prevention armamentarium. Where possible, recommendations in this guide are based on evidence from RCTs; however, relevant published data and guidance from expert clinical experience provides the basis for recommendations in those areas where RCT evidence is currently deficient or not applicable to the many osteoporosis patients not considered for RCT participation due to age and morbidity.

Osteoporosis Screening and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool: Its Scope and Role in General Clinical Practice

Osteoporosis is a widely prevalent condition among postmenopausal women characterized by low bone mass and skeletal fragility that increases the risk of fractures specifically in the hip, spine, wrist, humerus, and pelvis. It has become a major public health problem around the world. An osteoporotic fracture affects one in every three women and one in every five men aged 50 and above. Hip and spine fractures are linked to a higher death rate and can cause ambulation problems, depression, chronic pain, independence loss, and persistent discomfort. It not only puts a lot of strain on the individual but also causes a significant cost to society. Osteoporosis is a silent disease that goes unrecognized until a patient develops a pathological fracture. Diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on bone mineral density (BMD) estimation by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as defined by WHO. However, in many resource-constrained and underdeveloped or low-middle income countries, it is not widely available. There are a number of questionnaire-based techniques available to identify such postmenopausal women and older men who may be at risk of having low BMD and osteoporosis. Our aim of the study is to search and compile such simple yet useful and validated screening and assessment tools for osteoporosis that can help to identify people at risk of having low BMD and the potential candidate who can benefit from BMD estimation in a resource-restricted geographical area or low/middle-income countries and benefit from treatment. Though these tools are not diagnostic can have broader applicability in general clinical practice and usefulness in identifying high-risk individuals and may prove cost-effective. Although it has limitations, FRAX is a widely used osteoporotic fracture risk assessment tool around the globe and when used with femoral neck BMD it has greater accuracy.

Summary of the draft federal clinical guidelines for osteoporosis

A summary of the draft federal clinical guidelines on osteoporosis developed by members of the Russian Association of  Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Traumatologists and Orthopedists of Russia, the Russian Association for Menopause and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics is presented. The recommendations were developed from the perspective of evidence-based medicine, in accordance with the requirements for compiling clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of Russia published in 2019. A significant place is given to screening of primary osteoporosis in adults, differential diagnosis with other metabolic diseases of the skeleton, modern methods of diagnosing osteoporosis, principles of prescribing pathogenetic treatment, features of sequential and combination therapy, disease prevention and rehabilitation. Clinical recommendations will be useful both to general practitioners and physicians, as well as to narrow specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic traumatologists, nephrologists, obstetrician-gynecologists and neurologists, since osteoporosis is a multifactorial and multidisciplinary disease.

Anterior column opening structural bone grafting with posterior column compression technique for the treatment of obsolete vertebral compression fractures with severe spinal kyphosis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anterior column opening structural bone grafting with posterior column compression technique for the treatment of obsolete vertebral compression fractures with severe spinal kyphosis.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with senile obsolete vertebral compression fractures and severe spinal kyphosis were admitted to our hospital. During the treatment processing, an "eggshell" osteotomy, anterior column opening structural bone grafting with posterior column compression, and pedicle screw internal fixation were performed in all patients. The Cobb angle, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) pre-operatively, post-operatively, and at the last follow-up were analyzed. Furthermore, the intra-operative blood loss and the operative time were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The average osseous fusion time was 3.6 months (range from 3 to 5 months). The average operative time was 236 ± 20.1 min (range from 198 to 261 min). The average intra-operative blood loss was 1350.5 ± 70.2 ml (range from 809 to 2216 ml). The Cobb angle of localized kyphosis was 63.4 ± 12.4∘ pre-operatively, while 10.0 ± 2.1∘ post-operatively, and 12 ± 3.4∘ at the last follow-up evaluation, respectively. The average VAS score was decreased significantly from 8.7 ± 3.2 pre-operatively to 1.9 ± 0.4 post-operatively. The average ODI score was decreased from 78.3 ± 2.4% pre-operatively to 19.3 ± 5.3% post-operatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior column opening structural bone grafting with posterior column compression technique is effective, can effectively restore the sagittal balance of the spine, ease pain, and improve the quality of life of the patients with obsolete vertebral compression fractures and spinal kyphosis.

Vertebral fracture assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry along with bone mineral density in the evaluation of postmenopausal osteoporosis

This is a cross-sectional study to look at the utility of DXA-VFA in addition to bone mineral density (BMD) in the evaluation of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Vertebral fracture (VF) was detected in more than two-thirds of postmenopausal women referred for DXA-BMD. Addition of DXA-VFA detected additional 27% with VF whose BMD were in the non-osteoporotic range.

INTRODUCTION

VFs are the hallmark of osteoporotic fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures are an independent risk factor for future fragility fractures. This study was conducted to look at the prevalence of VF by DXA-vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and to study the utility of DXA-VFA in addition to bone mineral density (BMD) in the evaluation of osteoporosis.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of the postmenopausal women above the age of 50 years who were referred for BMD assessment by DXA. All subjects underwent VFA and BMD assessment by Hologic DXA.

RESULTS

Four hundred postmenopausal women with a mean age of 62.7 ± 6.2 years underwent BMD and VFA assessment by DXA. Prevalent VF was seen in 261 (65.2%) subjects, of which 114 (28.5%) subjects, 135 (33.7%) subjects, and 12 (3%) subjects had mild, moderate, and severe VF, respectively. Among subjects with VF, 136 (52.1%) and 90 (34.5%) had BMD-defined osteoporosis at the spine and femur neck, respectively. Overall, 59% with VF had osteoporosis at either the spine or femur neck. Forty-one-percent subjects with VF had BMD in non-osteoporotic range at both sites, of which 20% had moderate-to-severe VF. Addition of DXA-VFA to BMD assessment detected additional 27% with VF whose BMD was in the non-osteoporotic range.

CONCLUSION

VF was seen in more than two-thirds of the postmenopausal women referred for osteoporosis evaluation. VFA identified additional patients with VF whose BMD was not in the osteoporotic range. Incorporation of VFA to BMD will assist in documenting prevalent vertebral fracture which is an independent risk factor for incident fragility fracture irrespective of the BMD.

Diagnosis of vertebral fractures using a low-dose biplanar imaging system

Vertebral fractures (VFs) are independent risk factors for new fractures. However, spine radiographs cannot be used as a screening method. EOS® has a good diagnostic value for the diagnosis of VF with a better legibility of upper thoracic spine and a higher concordance between readers compared to vertebral fracture assessment (VFA).

INTRODUCTION

Vertebral fractures (VFs) are risk factors for new fractures. However, spine radiographs cannot be used as a screening method for both cost and radiation concerns. EOS® X-ray imaging system which allows the acquisition of biplane images in an upright weight-bearing position with low radiation dose was used. The objective of this study was to compare EOS® to VFA for the diagnosis of VF.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study in subjects aged above 50 years with indication for spine imaging. EOS® and VFA of the spine were performed the same day. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), negative predictive value (NPV), and the interobserver precision of EOS® were compared to VFA for the diagnosis of VF.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients (mean age 66.2 years) were included. At the vertebral level, 2.4 and 3.6 % of vertebrae were not legible using EOS® and VFA, respectively (p = 0.0007). The legibility of spine was significantly affected by scoliosis (odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, p < 0.0001, for EOS®, and OR = 1.8, p = 0.0041, for VFA). Sixty-six patients (33.0 %) and 69 (34.5 %) had at least one VF using VFA and EOS®, respectively. At patient level, Se, Sp, and NPV for the diagnosis of VF of EOS® were 79.7, 91.6, and 99 %, respectively. Concordance between both observers was very good for EOS® (kappa-score = 0.89), higher than for VFA (κ = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that EOS® has a good diagnostic value for the diagnosis of VF with a better legibility of upper thoracic spine and a higher concordance between readers compared to VFA.

Prediction models of prevalent radiographic vertebral fractures among older men

No studies have compared how well different prediction models discriminate older men who have a radiographic prevalent vertebral fracture (PVFx) from those who do not. We used area under receiver operating characteristic curves and a net reclassification index to compare how well regression-derived prediction models and nonregression prediction tools identify PVFx among men age ≥65 yr with femoral neck T-score of -1.0 or less enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study. The area under receiver operating characteristic for a model with age, bone mineral density, and historical height loss (HHL) was 0.682 compared with 0.692 for a complex model with age, bone mineral density, HHL, prior non-spine fracture, body mass index, back pain, grip strength, smoking, and glucocorticoid use (p values for difference in 5 bootstrapped samples 0.14-0.92). This complex model, using a cutpoint prevalence of 5%, correctly reclassified only a net 5.7% (p = 0.13) of men as having or not having a PVFx compared with a simple criteria list (age ≥ 80 yr, HHL >4 cm, or glucocorticoid use). In conclusion, simple criteria identify older men with PVFx and regression-based models. Future research to identify additional risk factors that more accurately identify older men with PVFx is needed.

Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis

The Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis was developed by an expert committee of the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) in collaboration with a multispecialty council of medical experts in the field of bone health convened by NOF. Readers are urged to consult current prescribing information on any drug, device, or procedure discussed in this publication.

Prediction models of prevalent radiographic vertebral fractures among older women

It is unknown how well prediction models incorporating multiple risk factors identify women with radiographic prevalent vertebral fracture (PVFx) compared with simpler models and what their value might be in clinical practice to select older women for lateral spine imaging. We compared 4 regression models for predicting PVFx in women aged 68 y and older enrolled in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures with a femoral neck T-score ≤ -1.0, using area under receiving operator characteristic curves (AUROC) and a net reclassification index. The AUROC for a model with age, femoral neck bone mineral density, historical height loss (HHL), prior nonspine fracture, body mass index, back pain, and grip strength was only minimally better than that of a more parsimonious model with age, femoral neck bone mineral density, and historical height loss (AUROC 0.689 vs 0.679, p values for difference in 5 bootstrapped samples <0.001-0.35). The prevalence of PVFx among this older population of Caucasian women remained more than 20% even when women with low probability of PVFx, as estimated by the prediction models, were included in the screened population. These results suggest that lateral spine imaging is appropriate to consider for all Caucasian women aged 70 y and older with low bone mass to identify those with PVFx.

Simplified criteria for selecting patients for vertebral fracture assessment

The 2013 Position Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has adopted simplified indications for vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) based on an analysis of the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF). This showed that a simpler regression model, which included only age, bone mineral density (BMD), and height loss, was able to differentiate women with vertebral fractures from those without vertebral fractures almost as well as more complex models. We aimed to verify these findings in 1228 women referred for BMD testing and determine if the 2013 ISCD indications for VFA would perform as well the 2007 indications. The simple and complex SOF-based models were similar in terms of sensitivity (88.4% vs 89.4%), specificity (44.4% vs 45.5%), positive (25.9% vs 26.5%) and negative (94.5% vs 95.1%) predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) (0.664 vs 0.674). The 2013 and 2007 ISCD VFA indications did not differ significantly in terms of sensitivity (88.2% vs 91.3%), specificity (41.3% vs 37.5%), positive (25.3% vs 22.9%) and negative (93.9% vs 95.5%) predictive values, and AUROC (0.648 vs 0.644). Our study provides support for the use of the simplified 2013 ISCD VFA indications as a practical approach to VFA testing.

European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk of fractures due to osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2008. This manuscript updates these in a European setting.

METHODS

Systematic literature reviews.

RESULTS

The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk, general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis, monitoring of treatment, assessment of fracture risk, case finding strategies, investigation of patients and health economics of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.

Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry among Caucasian women and men without a prior fracture according to age and body weight

We used a microsimulation model to estimate the threshold body weights at which screening bone densitometry is cost-effective. Among women aged 55-65 years and men aged 55-75 years without a prior fracture, body weight can be used to identify those for whom bone densitometry is cost-effective.

INTRODUCTION

Bone densitometry may be more cost-effective for those with lower body weight since the prevalence of osteoporosis is higher for those with low body weight. Our purpose was to estimate weight thresholds below which bone densitometry is cost-effective for women and men without a prior clinical fracture at ages 55, 60, 65, 75, and 80 years.

METHODS

We used a microsimulation model to estimate the costs and health benefits of bone densitometry and 5 years of fracture prevention therapy for those without prior fracture but with femoral neck osteoporosis (T-score ≤ -2.5) and a 10-year hip fracture risk of ≥3%. Threshold pre-test probabilities of low BMD warranting drug therapy at which bone densitometry is cost-effective were calculated. Corresponding body weight thresholds were estimated using data from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF), the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2005-2006.

RESULTS

Assuming a willingness to pay of $75,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and drug cost of $500/year, body weight thresholds below which bone densitometry is cost-effective for those without a prior fracture were 74, 90, and 100 kg, respectively, for women aged 55, 65, and 80 years; and were 67, 101, and 108 kg, respectively, for men aged 55, 75, and 80 years.

CONCLUSIONS

For women aged 55-65 years and men aged 55-75 years without a prior fracture, body weight can be used to select those for whom bone densitometry is cost-effective.

Combined vertebral fracture assessment and bone mineral density measurement: a new standard in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in academic populations

Vertebral Fracture Analysis enables the detection of vertebral fractures in the same session as bone mineral density testing. Using this method in 2,424 patients, we found unknown vertebral fractures in approximately one out of each six patients with significant impact on management.

INTRODUCTION

The presence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures (VF) is an important risk factor for all future fractures independent of BMD. Yet, determination of the VF status has not become standard practice. Vertebral Fracture Assessment (VFA) is a new feature available on modern densitometers. In this study we aimed to determine the prevalence of VF using VFA in all patients referred for BMD testing in a university medical center and to evaluate its added clinical value.

METHODS

Prospective diagnostic evaluation study in 2,500 consecutive patients referred for BMD. Patients underwent VFA in supine position after BMD testing. Questionnaires were used to assess perceived added value of VFA.

RESULTS

In 2,424 patients (1,573 women), results were evaluable. In 541 patients (22%), VFA detected a prevalent VF that was unknown in 69%. In women, the prevalence was 20% versus 27% found in men (p < 0.0001). The prevalence of VF was 14% in patients with normal BMD (97/678), increased to 21% (229/1,100) in osteopenia and to 26% in those with osteoporosis (215/646) by WHO criteria. After excluding mild fractures VF prevalence was 13% (322/2,424). In 468 of 942 questionnaires (50% response rate), 27% of the referring physicians reported VFA results to impact on patient management.

CONCLUSIONS

VFA is a patient friendly new tool with a high diagnostic yield, as it detected unknown VF in one out of each six patients, with significant impact on management. We believe these findings justify considering VFA in all new patients referred for osteoporosis assessment in similar populations.

Bone densitometry and vertebral fracture assessment

Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) is used to diagnose osteoporosis, assess fracture risk, and monitor response to therapy. Of the different methods for measuring BMD, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the only technology for classifying BMD according to criteria established by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the only technology that is validated for BMD input with the WHO fracture risk assessment algorithm, FRAX. Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) by DXA provides an image of the thoracic and lumbar spine for the purpose of detecting vertebral fracture deformities. Identification of a previously unrecognized vertebral fracture may change diagnostic classification, assessment of fracture risk, and treatment decisions. In comparison with standard radiographs of the spine, the correlation for detecting moderate and severe vertebral fractures is good, with a smaller dose of ionizing irradiation, greater patient convenience, and lower cost. Optimal performance of DXA and VFA requires training and adherence to quality standards.

Does the funding source influence the results in economic evaluations? A case study in bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis

Research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is often assumed to be more likely to report favourable cost-effectiveness results. To determine whether there was a relationship between the source of funding and the reporting of positive results. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify economic evaluations of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. We extracted the source of funding, region of study, the journal name and impact factor, and all reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We identified which ICERs were under the thresholds of $US20 000, $US50 000 and $US100 000 per QALY. A quality score between 0 and 7 was also given to each of the studies. We used generalized estimating equations for the analysis. The systematic review yielded 532 potential abstracts; 17 of these met our final eligibility criteria. Ten studies (59%) were funded by non-industry sources. A total of 571 ICERs were analysed. There was no significant difference between the number of industry- and non-industry-funded studies reporting ICERs below the thresholds of $US20 000 and $US50 000. However, industry-sponsored studies were more likely to report ICERs below $US100 000 (odds ratio = 4.69, 95% CI 1.77, 12.43). Studies of higher methodological quality (scoring >4.5 of 7) were less likely to report ICERs below $US20 000 and $US50 000 than studies of lower methodological quality (scores <4). Methodological quality was not significantly different between studies reporting ICERs under $US100 000. In this relatively small sample of studies of bisphosphonates, the funding source (industry vs non-industry) did not seem to significantly affect the reporting of ICERs below the $US20 000 and $US50 000 thresholds. We hypothesize that methodological quality might be a more significant factor than the source of funding in differentiating which studies are likely to report favourable ICERs, with the higher-quality studies significantly less likely to report ICERs below $US20 000 and $US50 000 per QALY. Further research should explore this finding.

The impact of fewer hip fractures with risedronate versus alendronate in the first year of treatment: modeled German cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The Risedronate and Alendronate (REAL) cohort study provides unique comparative effectiveness data for real world bisphosphonate treatment of osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to generic alendronate in Germany applying the REAL effectiveness data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A validated Markov model of osteoporosis was populated with REAL effectiveness data and German epidemiological, cost, and utility data. To estimate the impact of therapy on hip fractures, costs, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs), the analysis included women>or=65 years, treated with risedronate or alendronate and followed for 4 additional years. Country-specific data included population mortality, fracture costs, and annual drug costs, using a German social insurance perspective. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. A differential hip fracture relative risk reduction of 43% was applied to risedronate vs. alendronate.

RESULTS

The model predicted that treatment with risedronate would result in fewer hip fractures and more QALYs at a reduced cost (savings of euro278 per treated woman) compared to treatment with generic alendronate. Sensitivity analysis assuming 2 years of treatment and equivalence of effect after 1 year show cost savings as well (euro106 per treated woman).

DISCUSSION

Whereas previous economic evaluations involving bisphosphonates have mainly relied on efficacy data from noncomparative clinical trials, this study's strength is in the use of comparative effectiveness data from one data source. The magnitude of the cost savings observed were sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding treatment duration, therapy discontinuation and cost of generic alendronate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on "real world" data the analysis supports the first line use of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporotic women in Germany.

Clinical challenges in the management of osteoporosis

While knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis has expanded dramatically over the last few years, gaps in knowledge still exist with guidance lacking on the appropriate management of several common clinical scenarios. This article uses fictional clinical scenarios to help answer three challenging questions commonly encountered in clinical practice. The first clinical challenge is when to initiate drug therapy in a patient with low bone density. It is estimated that 34 million America have low bone density and are at a higher risk for low trauma fractures. Limitations of using bone mineral density alone for drug therapy decisions, absolute risk assessment and evidence for the cost-effectiveness of therapy in this population are presented. The second clinical challenge is the prevention and treatment of vitamin D deficiency. Appropriate definitions for vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency, the populations at risk for low vitamin, potential consequences of low vitamin D, and how to manage a patient with low vitamin D are reviewed. The third clinical challenge is how to manage a patient receiving drug therapy for osteoporosis who has been deemed a potential treatment failure. How to define treatment failure, common causes of treatment failure, and the approach to the management of a patient who is not responding to appropriate osteoporosis therapy are discussed.

Does a history of non-vertebral fracture identify women without osteoporosis for treatment?

BACKGROUND

Postmenopausal women with a prior fracture have an increased risk for future fracture. Whether a history of non-vertebral fracture defines a group of women with low bone mass but without osteoporosis for whom alendronate would prevent new non-vertebral fracture is not known.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT). Of 2,785 postmenopausal women with a T-score at the femoral neck between -1 and -2.5 and without prevalent radiographic vertebral deformity, 880 (31.6%) reported experiencing a fracture after 45 years of age. Women were randomized to placebo or alendronate (5 mg/day years for the first 2 years and 10 mg/day thereafter) and were followed for an average of 4.2 +/- 0.5 years. Incident non-vertebral fractures were confirmed by x-rays and radiology reports.

RESULTS

In the placebo arm, a self-report of prior fracture identified women with a 1.5-fold (hazard ratio [RH] 1.46, 95% C.I. 1.04-2.04) increased risk for incident non-vertebral fracture. However, there was no evidence that the effect of alendronate differed across subgroups of women with (RH 1.26 for alendronate vs placebo, 95% C.I. 0.89-1.79) and without prior fracture (RH 1.02 for alendronate vs placebo, 95% C.I. 0.76-1.38; P = 0.37 for interaction).

CONCLUSION

Assessing a clinical risk factor, prior non-vertebral fracture, did not identify women with low bone mass for whom alendronate reduced future non-vertebral fracture risk.

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?

Bone densitometry is currently widely recommended for, and considered central to, identifying post-menopausal women and older men at high risk of fracture and establishing an indication for pharmacological fracture-prevention therapy. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively review cost-effectiveness modelling studies published to date of bone mass measurement technologies (primarily dual energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]) designed to identify those individuals at sufficiently high risk of fracture to warrant pharmacological fracture-prevention therapy.Based on older paradigms of the pharmacological treatment of those with a bone density value below a specific threshold, bone densitometry appears to be cost effective for post-menopausal women aged > or =65 years, regardless of the presence or absence of other clinical risk factors. For younger post-menopausal women, bone densitometry is likely to be cost effective only for those with specific clinical risk factors, such as prior fracture or low bodyweight. For older men, bone densitometry may be cost effective for those who have had a prior fracture and/or are aged > or =80 years, but the subset of men for whom bone densitometry is likely to be cost effective may vary from country to country depending on societal willingness to pay for health benefits, fracture rates in the population and the costs of bone densitometry and drug treatment. The cost effectiveness of other technologies such as heel ultrasound, peripheral DXA and quantitative CT remains uncertain.However, in the context of the new WHO paradigm of directing treatment based on absolute fracture risk rather than bone density, a new generation of cost-effectiveness modelling studies will be required to define the most cost-effective way bone densitometry can be used to identify those who are likely to benefit sufficiently from pharmacological fracture-prevention therapies.

Cost-effectiveness modeling research of pharmacologic therapy to prevent osteoporosis-related fractures

Osteoporotic fractures are common among postmenopausal women and elderly men, and they cause substantial direct medical costs and loss of quality of life. The potential costs of widespread intervention strategies to reduce the incidence of fractures are also quite high. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is highly significant to large-scale health insurers and healthcare systems. Most modeling studies to date have examined the cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment for subsets of postmenopausal women selected on the basis of bone mineral density and/or prevalent vertebral fracture. They generally suggest that oral bisphosphonates and raloxifene are cost-effective therapies for these subsets. Increasingly, modeling studies of treatments for those selected on the basis of absolute fracture risk rather than bone density criteria are being done to establish absolute fracture risk thresholds at which various treatments are cost-effective.

Is treatment of early postmenopausal women with bisphosphonates justified?

The decision to treat women in the early postmenopausal period has come under scrutiny because of the low occurrence of fractures in this population and the possible lack of cost-effectiveness for individual patients. This article focuses on the potential use of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in the early postmenopausal period. Studies have determined that there is a relationship between bisphosphonate treatment and bone mineral density (BMD) gains, even in women in the early postmenopausal period without a diagnosis of osteoporosis. These patients receive benefit from treatment, including improvements in BMD levels and fracture protection. Using BMD scores, rates of bone turnover, and risk-based diagnostic criteria as part of the decision to initiate therapy may allow for the identification of an early postmenopausal patient population that would benefit from preventative therapy. This would improve the cost-effectiveness of using bisphosphonates for the prevention of osteoporosis in this population. The evaluation of women at risk for developing osteoporosis should include an assessment of both BMD scores and additional risk factors. Early postmenopausal women who are in a high-risk group should be considered candidates to receive bisphosphonate therapy.

Potential for bone turnover markers to cost-effectively identify and select post-menopausal osteopenic women at high risk of fracture for bisphosphonate therapy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Over half of all fractures among post-menopausal women occur in those who do not have osteoporosis by bone density criteria. Measurement of bone turnover may cost-effectively identify a subset of women with T-score >-2.5 for whom anti-resorptive drug therapy is cost-effective.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, we estimated the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for five years of oral bisphosphonate compared to no drug therapy for osteopenic post-menopausal women aged 60 to 80 years with a high (top quartile) or low (bottom 3 quartiles) level of a bone turnover marker.

RESULTS

For women with high bone turnover, the cost per QALY gained with alendronate compared to no drug therapy among women aged 70 years with T-scores of -2.0 or -1.5 were $58,000 and $80,000 (U.S. 2004 dollars), respectively. If bisphosphonates therapy also reduced the risk of non-vertebral fractures by 20% among osteopenic women with high bone turnover, then the costs per QALY gained were $34,000 and $50,000 for women age 70 with high bone turnover and T-scores of -2.0 and -1.5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Measurement of bone turnover markers has the potential to identify a subset of post-menopausal women without osteoporosis by bone density criteria for whom bisphosphonate therapy to prevent fracture is cost-effective. The size of that subset highly depends on the assumed efficacy of bisphosphonates for fracture risk reduction among women with both a T-score >-2.5 and high bone turnover and the cost of bisphosphonate treatment.

Treating osteoporosis: economic aspects of bisphosphonate therapy

Each year, fractures associated with osteoporosis place a significant burden on healthcare spending and result in unnecessary morbidity, mortality and reductions in quality of life for individual patients. Several treatments are available that can improve the course of this chronic bone disease, and lead to significant reductions in fractures. Bisphosphonates have proven efficacy, are widely available and currently recommended as the first-line of therapy for osteoporosis in many practice guidelines. In addition to demonstrating clinical benefit, from a health-policy perspective, the economic benefits regarding prevention and treatment must be established. In recent years, several health economic studies have examined the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of bisphosphonates in various patient groups. This paper reviews a number of these studies regarding the economic benefits of treating osteoporosis with bisphosphonates and considers for whom prevention and/or treatment is most warranted.

The cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: a structured review of the literature

Osteoporotic fragility fractures constitute a significant public health concern. The lifetime risk of any osteoporotic fracture is very high (40-50% in women and 13-22% in men). Fractures are associated with significant mortality and morbidity and represent a substantial economic burden to society. Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate and ibandronate) are indicated for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis but are costly compared with other treatments, such as vitamin D and calcium. Our search identified 23 studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonate therapy for the treatment and prevention of fragility fractures; these studies were from five geographical areas and employed a variety of comparators and assumptions. We identified 11 studies investigating bisphosphonates in women with low bone mineral density (BMD) [T-score >2.5 standard deviations {SDs} below normal {mean} peak values for young adults] and previous fractures, five studies investigating bisphosphonates in women with low BMD and no previous fracture, one study of bisphosphonates in women with osteopenia, five studies involving screening and two studies of bisphosphonates in special populations (women initiating corticosteroid treatment and men). In women with low BMD and previous fractures, bisphosphonate therapy was most cost effective in populations aged > or =70 years and was unlikely to be cost effective in populations aged < or =50 years. There was uncertainty concerning the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in such populations aged 60-69 years. In women with low BMD without previous fractures, treatment with alendronate or risedronate appeared to be cost effective across countries (UK, US, Denmark), but there was some uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of etidronate in patients in the highest age groups. Identifying risk factors for fractures through means such as spine radiographs to detect vertebral deformities improves the cost effectiveness of treatment. In women with osteopenia, alendronate therapy may be cost effective in women with a T-score of -2.4SD in the US. Screening for low BMD and treatment with alendronate or etidronate appears to be cost effective in postmenopausal women in general and in women with rheumatoid arthritis initiating corticosteroid therapy. Alendronate therapy without screening was also shown to be potentially cost effective in certain at-risk male populations, as well as in women initiating corticosteroid therapy after the age of 40 years. Decision makers in the US, UK and Sweden should consider funding the use of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in women aged >70 years, particularly if they have other risk factors for fracture. Further studies are required to make more definitive conclusions in other countries and patient populations. Screening strategies for low BMD followed by bisphosphonate treatment should also be considered in the general female population aged >65 years in the UK and US and in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating corticosteroid therapy.

Clinical review: Clinical applications of vertebral fracture assessment by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry

CONTEXT

Vertebral fracture (VF) is the most common type of fragility fracture, yet most VFs are not clinically apparent. VFs are associated with a significant increase in morbidity, mortality, and risk of future fracture. Many patients with VFs do not have T-scores classified as osteoporosis. Knowledge of VFs may change diagnostic classification, estimation of future fracture risk, and clinical management. VF assessment (VFA) by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry is a method for imaging the spine to diagnose VFs.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Background information and medical evidence on the technology and clinical applications of VFA was acquired by electronic searching of PubMed for appropriate terms that included vertebral fracture, imaging, diagnosis, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and cost effectiveness. Matches with the highest levels of medical evidence were selected for review, recognizing that the new and evolving nature of the field required inclusion of some material that relied partly on expert opinion.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The sensitivity and specificity of VFA compare favorably with spine radiographs in the ability to diagnose grade 2 and 3 VFs. VFA involves less radiation, lower cost, and often greater patient convenience than spine radiography. Cost effectiveness modeling suggests that imaging of the spine in selected patients provides essential diagnostic and therapeutic information at a nominal cost. Patients with T-scores that are classified as low bone mass (osteopenia) who are selected for pharmacological therapy based on the presence of a VF benefit by reduction in fracture risk. Guidelines for the clinical application of VFA have been developed by the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

CONCLUSIONS

VFA is a technology for diagnosing VFs that may alter diagnostic classification, improve fracture risk stratification, and identify patients likely to benefit from pharmacological therapy who otherwise might not be treated.

Cost-effectiveness of vertebral fracture assessment to detect prevalent vertebral deformity and select postmenopausal women with a femoral neck T-score>-2.5 for alendronate therapy: a modeling study

Most fractures occur in postmenopausal women who do not have osteoporosis by bone density criteria (T-score>-2.5). Prevalent vertebral deformity is a strong risk factor for incident fractures independent of bone mineral density, yet the majority of these deformities are clinically unapparent. Spine imaging on a dual-energy densitometer, called vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), can accurately detect these deformities. The purpose of this modeling study was to estimate the lifetime societal costs and health benefits of VFA and confirmatory follow-up radiography to detect prevalent vertebral deformity in osteopenic (T-score -1.5, -2.0, or -2.4) postmenopausal women, followed by anti-resorptive drug therapy for those with one or more deformities. We compared three strategies; no initial drug therapy, 5 yr of initial alendronate therapy, or VFA followed by 5 yr of alendronate therapy in those with one or more vertebral deformities confirmed on radiography (VFA strategy). Results for the base-case analyses showed that the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for the VFA strategy relative to no initial drug therapy ranged from 18,000 US dollars (for a 60-yr-old with a femoral neck T-score of -2.4) to 77,000 US dollars (for an 80-yr-old with a T-score of -1.5). VFA with selective confirmatory radiography is cost-effective, assuming a societal willingness to pay per QALY gained of 50,000 US dollars, for postmenopausal women aged 60 to 80 yr with femoral neck T-scores between -2.0 and -2.4, and for women age 60 or 70 yr with a T-score of -1.5. Assuming a societal willingness to pay of 100,000 US dollars per QALY gained, VFA is also cost-effective for women age 80 yr with a T-score of -1.5. These conclusions are robust to reasonable changes in fracture rates, assumed fracture disutility, discount rates, relative risk of fracture attributable to vertebral deformity, alendronate cost, and drug adherence.