Skip to main content
Log in

Description of an individual patient methodology for calculating the cost-effectiveness of treatments for osteoporosis in women

  • Special Features
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Models of the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical interventions for the treatment of osteoporosis have traditionally adopted cohort-based approaches. We present a transition-state model to simulate the experience of individual patients, allowing the full patient history and residential status to influence the probabilities of future fractures at the hip, spine, wrist or proximal humerus. Alongside epidemiological data, we used systematic literature reviews of costs, utilities and efficacy to populate the model for a UK setting. We established a statistical relationship between the inputs and outputs of the individual patient model creating a near instantaneous emulation of the individual patient model. We undertook extensive sensitivity analyses to analyse the uncertainty in the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year due to uncertainty in the efficacy of the drugs. We provide illustrative results accompanied by individual and multi-interventional cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

References

  • Consensus development conference (1991). Diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 90: 107–110.

  • Kanis JA et al (2000). An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Osteoporosis International 11: 192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (1994). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals (Press release). Department of Health: London.

  • Dolan P and Torgerson DJ (1998). The cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the United Kingdom female population. Osteoporosis Int 8: 611–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NICE FAD Reference National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004). Appraisal Consultation Document: The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Technologies for the Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures in Postmenopausal Women. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London, Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk.

  • Drummond MF et al (1997). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 2nd edn. Oxford Medical Publications: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein MC and Statson WB (1977). Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Eng J Med 296: 716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch S and Gafni A (1992). Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us where we want to be? J Health Econ 11: 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raftery J (2001). NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 323: 1300–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs AH and Gray AM (1999). Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 3(2).

  • Fenwick E et al (2001). Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 10: 779–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastman RC et al (1997). Model of complications of NIDDM. Model construction and assumptions. Diabe Care 20: 725–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health (1995). Policy Appraisal and Health. Department of Health: London.

  • Government Actuary Department (1999). Expectation of life United Kingdom females. http://www.gad.gov.uk/Life_Tables/docs/whltukf.xls

  • Stevenson MD et al (2004). A systematic review and economic evaluation of interventions for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Health Technol Assessment, in press.

  • Netten A et al (1998). Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury PSSRU, University of Kent: Canterbury, UK.

  • HM Treasury. GDP and GDP Deflators at Market Prices, 2000. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/economic_data_and_tools/gdp_deflators/data-gdp-fig.cfm

  • Murray C et al (2002). Utility following a fracture in a group of elderly women. Qual Life Res 11: 642.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Osteoporosis Foundation (1998). Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis. Introduction. Osteoporosis Int 8: S7–S80.

  • Oleksik A et al (2000). Health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women with low BMD with or without prevalent vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 15: 1384–1392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan P et al (1999). Health-related quality of life of Colles' fracture patients. Osteoporosis Int 9: 196–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanis JA et al (2004). The risk and burden of vertebral fractures in Sweden. Osteoporosis Int 15: 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton J et al (1996). A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 9(Suppl 2): 8–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanis JA et al (2002). Treatment of established osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost-utility analysis. Health Technol Assess 6(29).

  • Stinnett AA and Paltiel AD (1997). Estimating CE ratios under second-order uncertainty. Med Decision Making 17: 483–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson MD et al (2004). Gaussian Process modelling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modelling. A case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of established osteoporosis. Med Decision Making 24: 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2000). Uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17: 479–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotzbeucher CM et al (2000). Patients with prior fracture have a increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15: 721–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd CJ et al (1999). Anglian Audit of Hip Fracture 2. Cambridge Health Services Research Group, University of Cambridge: Cambridge.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has followed on from work funded by the UK National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA) and by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). The views and opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect those of the NCCHTA acting on behalf of the NHS Executive or NICE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M D Stevenson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stevenson, M., Brazier, J., Calvert, N. et al. Description of an individual patient methodology for calculating the cost-effectiveness of treatments for osteoporosis in women. J Oper Res Soc 56, 214–221 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601903

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601903

Keywords

Navigation