Cons-Molina F, Delezé HM, Peña RMP

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 48-55
PDF size: 175.62 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Different strategies were analyzed for postmenopausic osteoporosis detection based on their efficiency (higher sensibility at smaller cost). The study was carried out in 181 postmenopausic women older than 50 years of age without hormonal replacement therapy or other osteoporosis treatments. All patients completed the SCORE-1 and 2 Index (Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation) and were carried out measurement of bone mass in forearm, lumbar spine and femoral neck using central a densitometer (DXA). It was considered osteoporosis in presence of T-score -2.5 or smaller at any one of the three skeletal sites tested. Assumed costs were $5 pesos for SCORE-1 and 2 Index, $150 pesos for DXA in forearm $300 pesos for DXA in hip or spine and $600 pesos for DXA in hip and spine. The results shows that the current gold standard of measurement of bone mass (DXA in spine and hip) is inefficient relative to other evaluated strategies. It was identified as the most efficient strategy the application of SCORE-1 and 2 Index, followed by measurement of DXA in forearm since it identifies 90% of the postmenopausic women with osteoporosis at a cost of $135 pesos for women tested. Other strategies can reach higher sensibility but at a higher cost. The health services administrators should select the most effective strategy for detection to identify patient with osteoporosis according to the available economic resources.

REFERENCES

1. Consensus development conference. Diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1993; 94: 645-650.

2. Riggs BL, Melton U. The worldwide problem osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone 1995; 15: 5055-5115.

3. Crischilles EA, Butler D, Davis CD, Wallace RB. A model of life time osteoporosis impact. Arch Intern Med 1991; 1511: 2026-2032.

4. Ray NF, Chan JK, Thamer M, Melton U III. Medical expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic Fractures in the United States in 1995: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. J Bone Miner Res 1997; 12: 24-35.

5. Lydick E, Cook K, Turpin J, Melton M, Stine R, Byrnes C. Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Am J Managed Care 1998; 4: 37-48.

6. Albrand G, Sornay-Rendu E, Duboeuf F, Garnero P, Delmas P. A Clinical Test to Identify Patients with Osteoporosis. Osteoporosis International 1998; supl 1: 278.

7. World Health Organization. Assessment of Fracture Risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Technical Report Series. Genova Suiza: Wold Health Organization, 1994.

8. Cons-Molina F, Moroyoqui L, García M, Searcy R. Validación en español de un instrumento de pre-escrutinio para la detección de masa ósea baja en mujeres posmenopáusicas: Índice SCORE. Rev Mex Reumat 1998; 13: 135-43.

9. Cons-Molina F, Delezé M, Morales J, Guerrero G, Gonzalez G, Ramirez N, Escobar A, Searcy R, Barreras A. Validación de un instrumento de pre-escrutinio clínico (SCORE-2) para identificar mujeres posmenopáusicas mexicanas con masa ósea baja. Rev Mex Reumatol 2000; 15, supl 1: 7.

10. Abbott III TA, Mucha L, Manfredonia D, Schwartz E, Berger ML. Efficient patient identification strategies for women with osteoporosis. J Clin Densitometry 1999; 2(3): 223-230.