Purpose: In Sheffield (UK), we introduced the PINP monitoring algorithm for the management of osteoporosis treatment delivered in primary care. Our aims were to evaluate whether this algorithm was associated with better osteoporosis outcomes and was cost-effective compared to standard care.
Methods: Inclusion criteria were referral from Sheffield GPs, BMD scans performed between 2012 and 2013 and a report advising initiation of oral bisphosphonate and PINP monitoring. 906 patients were identified and retrospectively divided into Group A (intention to monitor, with baseline PINP, n = 588) and Group B (no intention to monitor, without baseline PINP, n = 318). The model described by Davis and colleagues was used to extrapolate life-time costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
Results: No differences were found in baseline characteristics between groups (age, gender, BMI, BMD and major risk factors for fractures). More patients in Group A started oral treatment (77.4% vs 49.1%; P < 0.001), but there were no differences between groups in the presence of a gap in treatment >3 months or in treatment duration. Patients in Group A were more likely to have follow-up DXA scan at 4–6 years from baseline (46.9% vs 29.2%; P < 0.000) and had a greater increase in total hip BMD (+2.74% vs + 0.42%; p value = 0.003). Fewer new fractures occurred in Group A but this was not statistically significant, but the numbers of fractures were small. Patients in Group A were more likely to change management (p = 0.005) including switching to zoledronate (p = 0.03). The PINP measurement and increased prescribing in Group A resulted in increases in both costs (£30.19) and QALYs (0.0039) relative to Group B, giving an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £7660 in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
Conclusions: Patients monitored with PINP are more likely to start oral bisphosphonate treatment, switch to zoledronate, have follow-up DXA scans and a greater increase of hip BMD. PINP monitoring has the potential to be cost-effective in a UK NHS setting given that interventions with an ICER under £20,000 are generally considered to be cost-effective.