{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027906976744186046, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.473684210526316, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment].

With Japan's rapidly aging population, a remarkable increase in fragility fractures due to osteoporosis and exhaustion of medical care resources is anticipated. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment will be more important than ever before. Because the outcome is estimated in terms of gain of life time and improvement in quality of living, a treatment is judged to be cost-effective when its cost per quality adjusted life year (QYALY) gained is below an acceptable threshold. According to studies in Western countries, medicines in use today including alendronate, risedronate, calcium plus vitamin D, calcitonin and raloxifene are cost-effective. However, studies on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment based on Japanese data are thought to be needed for Japanese patients.