Cost-effectiveness of FRAX®-based Intervention Thresholds for Management of Osteoporosis in Indian Women: a Markov Microsimulation Model Analysis

Overview

Journal Osteoporos Int

Specialties Endocrinology
Orthopedics

Date 2024 Dec 27

PMID 39730734

Authors

Lakshmi Nagendra

Manju Chandran

Jean-Yves Reginster

Sanjay Kumar Bhadada

Saptarshi Bhattacharya

Deep Dutta

Mickael Hiligsmann

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Osteoporosis represents a significant public health challenge in India, with an increasing economic burden due to the aging population. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®)-based intervention thresholds (ITs) for managing osteoporosis with generic alendronate in Indian women.

Methods: A Markov microsimulation model, adapted to the Indian healthcare context, was used to simulate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with different treatment strategies. The one-time gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (estimated at INR 1,97,468/QALY gained) was used as the cost-effectiveness threshold.

Results: The model revealed that generic alendronate is cost-effective for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) ITs beginning at age 60 years with full adherence-incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of INR 102,151 per QALY gained, and age 65 with real-world adherence-ICER of INR 28,203 per QALY gained (conversion rate used is 1 US dollar (USD) = INR 83.97 and 1 EURO = INR 92.70). Hip fracture (HF) ITs showed similar cost-effectiveness at ages 60 (ICER of INR 67,144) and was the dominant strategy (i.e., more QALYs for lower costs) at ≥ 65 years. Fixed ITs of 14% for MOF and 3.5% for HF proved cost-effective across all age groups (dominant strategy for ages ≥ 65 years). Limitations of our study include the reliance on fracture incidence data from Singaporean Indians and variability in fracture prevalence across India.

Conclusion: The results support the integration of FRAX®-based fixed ITs from the age of 50 years and age-based ones from the age of 65 years in India to optimize resource allocation and improve osteoporosis management.

References

Mithal A, Bansal B, Kyer C, Ebeling P . The Asia-Pacific Regional Audit-Epidemiology, Costs, and Burden of Osteoporosis in India 2013: A report of International Osteoporosis Foundation. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2014; 18(4):449-54. PMC: 4138897. DOI: 10.4103/2230-8210.137485. View

Bhadada S, Chadha M, Sriram U, Pal R, Paul T, Khadgawat R . The Indian Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ISBMR) position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in adults. Arch Osteoporos. 2021; 16(1):102. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-00954-1. View

Nagendra L, Bhavani N, Menon V, Pavithran P, Menon A, Abraham N . FRAX-based osteoporosis treatment guidelines for resource-poor settings in India. Arch Osteoporos. 2021; 16(1):69. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-00931-8. View

Sharma D, Prinja S, Aggarwal A, Rajsekar K, Bahuguna P . Development of the Indian Reference Case for undertaking economic evaluation for health technology assessment. Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia. 2023; 16:100241. PMC: 10485782. DOI: 10.1016/j.lansea.2023.100241. View

Chandran M, Lau T, Gagnon-Arpin I, Dobrescu A, Li W, Leung M . The health and economic burden of osteoporotic fractures in Singapore and the potential impact of increasing treatment rates through more pharmacological options. Arch Osteoporos. 2019; 14(1):114. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-019-0664-4. View

Kanis J, Johnell O, De Laet C, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P . A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone. 2004; 35(2):375-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2004.03.024. View

Hiligsmann M, Williams S, Fitzpatrick L, Silverman S, Weiss R, Reginster J . Cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide vs. teriparatide for United States women at increased risk of fracture. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019; 49(2):184-196. DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2019.01.006. View

Parker M, Anand J . What is the true mortality of hip fractures?. Public Health. 1991; 105(6):443-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0033-3506(05)80614-6. View

Hiligsmann M, Ethgen O, Richy F, Reginster J . Utility values associated with osteoporotic fracture: a systematic review of the literature. Calcif Tissue Int. 2008; 82(4):288-92. DOI: 10.1007/s00223-008-9117-6. View

10.

Hiligsmann M, Evers S, Ben Sedrine W, Kanis J, Ramaekers B, Reginster J . A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 33(3):205-24. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0231-1. View

11.

Fatoye F, Smith P, Gebrye T, Yeowell G . Real-world persistence and adherence with oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(4):e027049. PMC: 6500256. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027049. View

12.

Liew D, Chapurlat R, Sornay-Rendu E, Lespessailles E, Peng Y, Seeman E . Cost-effectiveness of treatment of women aged 70 years and older with both osteopenia and microstructural deterioration. Bone. 2020; 142:115682. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115682. View

13.

Rajan R, Paul J, Cherian K, Asha H, Kapoor N, Paul T . FRAX® with or without BMD and TBS predicts fragility fractures in community-dwelling rural southern Indian postmenopausal women. Arch Osteoporos. 2020; 15(1):82. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-020-00756-x. View

14.

Bansal B, Mithal A, Chopra S, Bhanot S, Kuchay M, Farooqui K . Judicious use of DXA-BMD in assessing fracture risk by using clinical risk factors in the Indian population. Arch Osteoporos. 2018; 13(1):115. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-018-0536-3. View

15.

Garg S, Tripathi N, Ranjan A, Bebarta K . Comparing the average cost of outpatient care of public and for-profit private providers in India. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):838. PMC: 8375109. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06777-7. View

16.

Prinja S, Bahuguna P, Pinto A, Sharma A, Bharaj G, Kumar V . The cost of universal health care in India: a model based estimate. PLoS One. 2012; 7(1):e30362. PMC: 3267714. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030362. View

17.

Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M . Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 1994; 3(2):95-104. DOI: 10.1002/hec.4730030206. View