IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i18p2331-d639477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Markov Models for Economic Evaluation in Osteoporosis Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Osca-Guadalajara

    (Hospital Universitario de la Plana, 12540 Villarreal, Spain)

  • Javier Díaz-Carnicero

    (Research Unit for Health Economics and Management, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

  • Silvia González-de-Julián

    (Research Unit for Health Economics and Management, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

  • David Vivas-Consuelo

    (Research Unit for Health Economics and Management, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

Abstract

Osteoporosis is frequent in elderly people, causing bone fractures and lowering their quality of life. The costs incurred by these fractures constitute a problem for public health. Markov chains were used to carry out an incremental cost-utility analysis of the four main drugs used in Spain to treat osteoporosis (alendronate, risedronate, denosumab and teriparatide). We considered 14 clinical transition states, from starting osteoporotic treatment at the age of 50 until death or the age of 100. Cost-effectiveness was measured by quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The values used in the Markov model were obtained from the literature. Teriparatide is the cost-effective alternative in the treatment of osteoporosis in patients with fractures from the age of 50, establishing a payment threshold of 20,000 EUR/QALY. However, it is the most expensive therapy, not appearing cost-effective in cases that do not present fracture and in ages over 80 years with fracture. Alendronate and denosumab therapies are presented as cost-effective osteoporosis treatment alternatives depending on the age of onset and duration of treatment. From the perspective of cost-effectiveness, establishing a payment threshold of 20,000 EUR/QALY, teriparatide is the cost-effective alternative in patients with fracture from the age of 50 to 70 years old in Spain.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Osca-Guadalajara & Javier Díaz-Carnicero & Silvia González-de-Julián & David Vivas-Consuelo, 2021. "Markov Models for Economic Evaluation in Osteoporosis Treatment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(18), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:18:p:2331-:d:639477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/18/2331/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/18/2331/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    2. Anju Parthan & Morgan Kruse & Nicole Yurgin & Joice Huang & Hema Viswanathan & Douglas Taylor, 2013. "Cost Effectiveness of Denosumab versus Oral Bisphosphonates for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in the US," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 485-497, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mikael Svensson & Fredrik Nilsson & Karl Arnberg, 2015. "Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    2. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    3. Javad Moradpour & Aidan Hollis, 2021. "The economic theory of cost‐effectiveness thresholds in health: Domestic and international implications," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1139-1151, May.
    4. Cairns, John, 2006. "Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 134-143, April.
    5. Dakin, Helen Angela & Devlin, Nancy J. & Odeyemi, Isaac A.O., 2006. ""Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 352-367, August.
    6. repec:ces:ifodic:v:4:y:2006:i:2:p:14567506 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    8. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Henderson, John & Janke, Katharina & Propper, Carol, 2007. "Are current levels of air pollution in England too high?: the impact of pollution on population mortality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6205, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    11. Joseph P. Cook & Joseph Golec, 2017. "How excluding some benefits from value assessment of new drugs impacts innovation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1813-1825, December.
    12. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    13. E. Stolk & M. Poley, 2005. "Criteria for determining a basic health services package," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 2-7, March.
    14. Mickaël Hiligsmann & Stuart S. Silverman & Andrea J. Singer & Leny Pearman & Jake Mathew & Yamei Wang & John Caminis & Jean-Yves Reginster, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(7), pages 819-830, July.
    15. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    16. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    17. Leonie Segal & Kim Dalziel & Duncan Mortimer, 2010. "Fixing the game: are between‐silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head‐start?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 449-465, April.
    18. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    19. Malinowski, Krzysztof Piotr & Kawalec, Paweł & Trąbka, Wojciech, 2016. "Impact of patient outcomes and cost aspects on reimbursement recommendations in Poland in 2012–2014," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(11), pages 1249-1255.
    20. Dana Goldman & Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas J. Philipson & Wesley Yin, 2010. "Valuing health technologies at nice: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1109-1116, October.
    21. Chris Sampson & Bernarda Zamora & Sam Watson & John Cairns & Kalipso Chalkidou & Patricia Cubi-Molla & Nancy Devlin & Borja García-Lorenzo & Dyfrig A. Hughes & Ashley A. Leech & Adrian Towse, 2022. "Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 651-667, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:18:p:2331-:d:639477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.