IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v30y2012i2p147-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Osteoporotic Fractures

Author

Listed:
  • Sangeeta Budhia
  • Yeshi Mikyas
  • Michael Tang
  • Enkhe Badamgarav

Abstract

Osteoporotic fractures are costly in terms of both the dollar amount and healthcare utilization. The objective of this review was to systematically synthesize published evidence regarding direct costs associated with the treatment of osteoporosis-related fractures in the US. We conducted a systematic literature review of published studies that used claims databases and economic studies reporting costs associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in the US. Studies published between 1990 and 2011 were systematically searched in PubMed (primary source), Ovid HealthSTAR, EMBASE and the websites of large agencies. Data concerning study design, patient population and cost components assessed were extracted with qualitative assessment of studymethods, limitations and conclusions. Cost assessment included direct medical and hospitalization (inpatient) costs. The cost differences by age and gender were examined. Of the 33 included studies, 26 reported an estimated total medical cost and hospital resource use associated with osteoporotic fractures. These studies indicated that, in the year following a fracture, medical and hospitalization costs were 1.6–6.2 higher than pre-fracture costs and 2.2–3.5 times higher than those for matched controls. Analysis of the hospitalization costs by osteoporotic fracture type resulted in hip fractures identified as the most expensive fracture type (unit cost range $US8358–32 195), while wrist and forearm fractures were the least expensive (unit cost range $US1885–12 136). Although incremental fracture costs were generally lower in the elderly than in the younger population, total costs were highest for the older (≥65 years of age) population. Total healthcare costs for fractures were highest for the older female population, but unit fracture costs in women were not consistently found to be higher than for men. The qualitative assessment of the included studies demonstrated that the design and reporting of individual studies were of good quality. However, the findings of this review and comparisons across studies were limited by differences in methodologies used by the different studies to derive costs, the populations included in the studies used and the fracture assessment. Despite the variability in estimates, the literature indicates that osteoporosisrelated fractures are associated with high total medical and hospitalization costs in the US. The variability in the cost estimates highlights the importance of comparing the methodologies and the types of costs used when choosing an appropriate unit cost for economic modelling. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Sangeeta Budhia & Yeshi Mikyas & Michael Tang & Enkhe Badamgarav, 2012. "Osteoporotic Fractures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 147-170, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:2:p:147-170
    DOI: 10.2165/11596880-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11596880-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11596880-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    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. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    2. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    3. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    4. Refoios Camejo, Rodrigo & McGrath, Clare & Herings, Ron, 2011. "A dynamic perspective on pharmaceutical competition, drug development and cost effectiveness," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 18-24, April.
    5. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    7. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    8. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    9. Nadja Chernyak & Heribert Sattel & Marsel Scheer & Christina Baechle & Johannes Kruse & Peter Henningsen & Andrea Icks, 2014. "Economic Evaluation of Brief Psychodynamic Interpersonal Therapy in Patients with Multisomatoform Disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-4, January.
    10. Catherine Pitt & Catherine Goodman & Kara Hanson, 2016. "Economic Evaluation in Global Perspective: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Recent Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 9-28, February.
    11. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    13. Ângela J. Ben & Jeruza L. Neyeloff & Camila F. Souza & Ana Paula O. Rosses & Aline L. Araujo & Adriana Szortika & Franciele Locatelli & Gabriela Carvalho & Cristina R. Neumann, 2020. "Cost-utility Analysis of Opportunistic and Systematic Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Strategies from the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 57-68, February.
    14. Barbara Graaff & Lei Si & Amanda L. Neil & Kwang Chien Yee & Kristy Sanderson & Lyle C. Gurrin & Andrew J. Palmer, 2017. "Population Screening for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia: Construction and Validation of a State-Transition Cost-Effectiveness Model," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 37-51, March.
    15. Christopher Fitzpatrick & Katherine Floyd, 2012. "A Systematic Review of the Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, January.
    16. Wei Zhang & Huiying Sun & Simon Woodcock & Aslam H. Anis, 2017. "Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    18. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    19. Lairson, David R. & Chung, Tong Han & Smith, Lisa G. & Springston, Jeffrey K. & Champion, Victoria L., 2015. "Estimating development cost of an interactive website based cancer screening promotion program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 56-62.
    20. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:2:p:147-170. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.