Recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis: outcomes of an experts' consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the US branch of the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Economic evaluations are increasingly used to assess the value of health interventions, but variable quality and heterogeneity limit the use of these evaluations by decision-makers. These recommendations provide guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards. INTRODUCTION: This paper aims to provide recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis in order to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards. METHODS: A working group was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis to make recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, to define an osteoporosis-specific reference case to serve a minimum standard for all economic analyses in osteoporosis, to discuss methodologic challenges and initiate a call for research. A literature review, a face-to-face meeting in New York City (including 11 experts), and a review/approval by a larger group of experts worldwide (including 23 experts in total) were conducted. RESULTS: Recommendations on the type of economic evaluation, methods for economic evaluation, modeling aspects, base-case analysis and population, excess mortality, fracture costs and disutility, treatment characteristics, and model validation were provided. Recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in osteoporosis were also made and an osteoporosis-specific checklist was designed that includes items to report when performing an economic evaluation in osteoporosis. Further, 12 minimum criteria for economic evaluations in osteoporosis were identified and 12 methodologic challenges and need for further research were discussed. CONCLUSION: While the working group acknowledges challenges and the need for further research, these recommendations are intended to supplement general and national guidelines for economic evaluations, improve transparency, quality, and comparability of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, and maintain methodologic standards to increase their use by decision-makers.

Fracture healing: a consensus report from the International Osteoporosis Foundation Fracture Working Group.

UNLABELLED: We used the RAND UCLA appropriateness method to decide appropriateness of use of osteoporosis medication after incident fracture and potential for fracture healing and make suggestions for trial design for clinical and preclinical research. PURPOSE: To develop appropriateness criteria to assist in the use and study of osteoporosis medications in patients with recent fracture and in the potential use of osteoporosis medications to enhance delayed fracture healing. To promote further research by suggesting preclinical and clinical trial design for studies where fracture healing is the endpoint. DESIGN: RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RUAM). PARTICIPANTS: A panel of experts, both members and non-members of the International Osteoporosis Foundation Fracture Working Group, were identified consisting of geriatricians, rheumatologists, orthopedists, endocrinologists, and internists. This resulted in a round 1 panel of 15 panelists, round 2 panel of 15 members, and a round 3 panel of 14 members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Agreement on statements and scenarios using RUAM. Three rounds of voting by panelists took place. Agreement in a third round was reached for 111 statements and scenarios, measured by median panel ratings and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings, based on the interpercentile range. RESULTS: An expert panel validated a set of statements and scenarios about the use of osteoporosis medications after incident fracture and use of these medications to enhance delayed fracture healing and made recommendations for study designs to investigate the effect of osteoporosis medications on fracture healing. CONCLUSIONS: The result of this exercise is intended to assist in improving patient care by identifying the appropriateness of use of osteoporosis medications after fracture and in fracture healing and to make suggestions for further preclinical and clinical research.