Nayak Smita, Greenspan Susan L
Swedish Center for Research and Innovation, Swedish Health Services, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
J Bone Miner Res. 2016 Jun;31(6):1189-99. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2784. Epub 2016 Feb 10.
Osteoporosis affects many men, with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the best osteoporosis screening strategies for men are unknown. We developed an individual-level state-transition cost-effectiveness model with a lifetime time horizon to identify the cost-effectiveness of different osteoporosis screening strategies for US men involving various screening tests (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA]; the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool [OST]; or a fracture risk assessment strategy using age, femoral neck bone mineral density [BMD], and Vertebral Fracture Assessment [VFA]); screening initiation ages (50, 60, 70, or 80 years); and repeat screening intervals (5 years or 10 years). In base-case analysis, no screening was a less effective option than all other strategies evaluated; furthermore, no screening was more expensive than all strategies that involved screening with DXA or the OST risk assessment instrument, and thus no screening was "dominated" by screening with DXA or OST at all evaluated screening initiation ages and repeat screening intervals. Screening strategies that most frequently appeared as most cost-effective in base-case analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses when assuming willingness-to-pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $100,000/QALY included screening initiation at age 50 years with the fracture risk assessment strategy and repeat screening every 10 years; screening initiation at age 50 years with fracture risk assessment and repeat screening every 5 years; and screening initiation at age 50 years with DXA and repeat screening every 5 years. In conclusion, expansion of osteoporosis screening for US men to initiate routine screening at age 50 or 60 years would be expected to be effective and of good value for improving health outcomes. A fracture risk assessment strategy using variables of age, femoral neck BMD, and VFA is likely to be the most effective of the evaluated strategies within accepted cost-effectiveness parameters. DXA and OST are also reasonable screening options, albeit likely slightly less effective than the evaluated fracture risk assessment strategy. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
骨质疏松症影响着许多男性,会导致严重的发病率和死亡率。然而,针对男性的最佳骨质疏松症筛查策略尚不清楚。我们开发了一个个体水平的状态转换成本效益模型,采用终身时间范围,以确定针对美国男性的不同骨质疏松症筛查策略的成本效益,这些策略涉及各种筛查测试(双能X线吸收法[DXA];骨质疏松症自我评估工具[OST];或使用年龄、股骨颈骨密度[BMD]和椎体骨折评估[VFA]的骨折风险评估策略);筛查起始年龄(50、60、70或80岁);以及重复筛查间隔(5年或10年)。在基础病例分析中,不进行筛查是比所有其他评估策略效果更差的选择;此外,不进行筛查比所有涉及使用DXA或OST风险评估工具进行筛查的策略成本更高,因此在所有评估的筛查起始年龄和重复筛查间隔中,不进行筛查都不会被DXA或OST筛查“主导”。在基础病例分析和单向敏感性分析中,当假设支付意愿为50,000美元/质量调整生命年(QALY)或100,000美元/QALY时,最常出现的最具成本效益的筛查策略包括:采用骨折风险评估策略,50岁开始筛查,每10年重复筛查一次;采用骨折风险评估,50岁开始筛查,每5年重复筛查一次;以及采用DXA,50岁开始筛查,每5年重复筛查一次。总之,将美国男性骨质疏松症筛查扩展到50或60岁开始进行常规筛查,有望有效且具有良好价值,可改善健康结果。在可接受的成本效益参数范围内,使用年龄、股骨颈BMD和VFA变量的骨折风险评估策略可能是评估策略中最有效的。DXA和OST也是合理的筛查选择,尽管可能比评估的骨折风险评估策略效果稍差。© 2016美国骨与矿物质研究学会。