Literature DB >> 12035765

Direct medical costs attributable to osteoporotic fractures.

S E Gabriel1, A N A Tosteson, C L Leibson, C S Crowson, G R Pond, C S Hammond, L J Melton.   

Abstract

Osteoporotic fractures are a major cause of morbidity in the elderly, the most rapidly growing segment of our population. We characterized the incremental direct medical costs following such fractures in a population-based cohort of men and women in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Cases included all County residents 50 years of age and older with an incident fracture due to minimal or moderate trauma between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1992. For each case, a control of the same age (+/- 1 year) and sex who was attended in the local medical system in the same year was identified. Total incremental costs (cases - controls) in the year after fracture were estimated. Unit costs for each health service/procedure were obtained through the Mayo Cost Data Warehouse, which provides a standardized, inflation-adjusted estimate reflecting the national average cost of providing the service. Regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with incremental costs. There were 1263 case/control pairs; their average age was 73.8 years and 78% were female. Median total direct medical costs were $761 and $625, respectively, for cases and nonfracture controls in the year prior to fracture, and $3884 and $712, respectively, in the year following fracture. The highest median incremental costs were for distal femur ($11756) and hip fractures ($11241), whereas the lowest were for rib fractures ($213). Although hip fractures resulted in more incremental cost than any other fracture type, this amounted to only 37% of the total incremental cost of all moderate-trauma fractures combined. Regression analyses revealed that age, prior year costs and type of fracture were significant predictors of incremental costs (p<0.03 for all comparisons). The incremental costs of osteoporotic fractures are therefore substantial. Whereas hip fractures contributed disproportionately, they accounted for only one-third of the total incremental cost of fractures in our cohort. The use of incremental costs in economic analyses will provide a more accurate reflection of the true cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis prevention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12035765     DOI: 10.1007/s001980200033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  74 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Smita Nayak; Mark S Roberts; Susan L Greenspan
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Dental panoramic radiograph as a tool to detect postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density: untrained general dental practitioners' diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Takashi Nakamoto; Akira Taguchi; Masahiko Ohtsuka; Yoshikazu Suei; Minoru Fujita; Keiji Tanimoto; Mikio Tsuda; Mitsuhiro Sanada; Koso Ohama; Junichiro Takahashi; Madeleine Rohlin
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-06-24       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Incidence and cost of osteoporotic fractures in France during 2001. A methodological approach by the national hospital database.

Authors:  Milka Maravic; Christine Le Bihan; Paul Landais; Patrice Fardellone
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Bone status of Indian women from a low-income group and its relationship to the nutritional status.

Authors:  Veena Shatrugna; Bharati Kulkarni; P Ajay Kumar; K Usha Rani; N Balakrishna
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  The need for microsimulation to evaluate osteoporosis interventions.

Authors:  David J Vanness; Anna N A Tosteson; Sherine E Gabriel; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-01-11       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Hospitalised osteoporotic vertebral fractures in Spain: analysis of the national hospital discharge registry.

Authors:  C Bouza; T López; M Palma; J M Amate
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-01-13       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Cost-equivalence of different osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  L J Melton; S E Gabriel; C S Crowson; A N A Tosteson; O Johnell; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Gonadal sex steroid status and bone health in middle-aged and elderly European men.

Authors:  D Vanderschueren; S R Pye; K Venken; H Borghs; J Gaytant; I T Huhtaniemi; J E Adams; K A Ward; G Bartfai; F F Casanueva; J D Finn; G Forti; A Giwercman; T S Han; K Kula; F Labrie; M E J Lean; N Pendleton; M Punab; A J Silman; F C W Wu; T W O'Neill; S Boonen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Advances in renal bone disease: osteoporosis and chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Sara Barnato; Stuart M Sprague
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.592

10.  Bayesian decision analysis for choosing between diagnostic/prognostic prediction procedures.

Authors:  John Kornak; Ying Lu
Journal:  Stat Interface       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 0.582

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.