Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2013
Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) by lateral DXA scanning may be cost-effective when used as part of fracture liaison services or primary care screening.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Clark E M, Carter L, Gould V C, Morrison L, Tobias J H
Аннотация
SUMMARY: We identified that use of VFA may be cost-effective in either selected women from primary care or women attending after a low trauma fracture.
INTRODUCTION: Lateral DXA scanning of the spine for vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is used for research, but its wider role is unclear. We aimed to establish whether VFA is cost-effective in women based on two different scenarios: following a low-trauma fracture, and after screening of high-risk women identified in primary care.
METHODS: The fracture cohort (FC) consisted of 377 women and the primary care cohort (PCC) of 251. Vertebral fractures were identified on VFA images by quantitative morphometry (QM). Outcome was cost-effectiveness of VFA, based on predicted change in clinical management defined as the identification of a vertebral fracture in a patient who otherwise falls below the threshold for treatment. FRAX treatment thresholds assessed were (1) 20/3 % thresholds and (2) National Osteoporosis Guidelines Group (NOGG) thresholds.
RESULTS: As a result, 9.8 % from FC and 13.9 % from PCC were identified with vertebral fractures. Management was changed in 21 to 22/377 (5.6-5.8 %) in FC and 12 to 26/251 (4.8-10.4 %) from PCC depending on which thresholds were used. Sensitivity analyses identified medication adherence as the assumption which most influenced the model. The best-estimate cost-per-QALY for use of VFA in FC was £3,243 for 20/3 threshold and £2,130 for NOGG; for PCC, this was £7,831 for 20/3 and was cost-saving for NOGG. Further analyses to adjust for potential false-positive vertebral fracture identification with QM showed VFA was no longer cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: VFA appears to be cost-effective in routine clinical practise, particularly when relatively inaccurate methods of identification of vertebral fractures are used such as QM.
INTRODUCTION: Lateral DXA scanning of the spine for vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is used for research, but its wider role is unclear. We aimed to establish whether VFA is cost-effective in women based on two different scenarios: following a low-trauma fracture, and after screening of high-risk women identified in primary care.
METHODS: The fracture cohort (FC) consisted of 377 women and the primary care cohort (PCC) of 251. Vertebral fractures were identified on VFA images by quantitative morphometry (QM). Outcome was cost-effectiveness of VFA, based on predicted change in clinical management defined as the identification of a vertebral fracture in a patient who otherwise falls below the threshold for treatment. FRAX treatment thresholds assessed were (1) 20/3 % thresholds and (2) National Osteoporosis Guidelines Group (NOGG) thresholds.
RESULTS: As a result, 9.8 % from FC and 13.9 % from PCC were identified with vertebral fractures. Management was changed in 21 to 22/377 (5.6-5.8 %) in FC and 12 to 26/251 (4.8-10.4 %) from PCC depending on which thresholds were used. Sensitivity analyses identified medication adherence as the assumption which most influenced the model. The best-estimate cost-per-QALY for use of VFA in FC was £3,243 for 20/3 threshold and £2,130 for NOGG; for PCC, this was £7,831 for 20/3 and was cost-saving for NOGG. Further analyses to adjust for potential false-positive vertebral fracture identification with QM showed VFA was no longer cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: VFA appears to be cost-effective in routine clinical practise, particularly when relatively inaccurate methods of identification of vertebral fractures are used such as QM.