J H E Yong1, L Masucci2, J S Hoch3,4, R Sujic5, D Beaton6,7. 1. Centre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (CLEAR), The HUB Health Research Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. yongh@smh.ca. 2. Centre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (CLEAR), The HUB Health Research Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. masuccil@smh.ca. 3. Centre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (CLEAR), The HUB Health Research Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. hochj@smh.ca. 4. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. hochj@smh.ca. 5. Musculoskeletal Health & Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. sujicr@smh.ca. 6. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. beatond@smh.ca. 7. Musculoskeletal Health & Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. beatond@smh.ca.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The cost-effectiveness of a less intensive fracture liaison service is unknown. We evaluated a fracture liaison service that had been educating and referring patients for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for 6 years. Our results suggest that a less intensive fracture liaison service, with moderate effectiveness, can still be worthwhile. INTRODUCTION: Fragility fractures are common among older patients; the risk of re-fracture is high but could be reduced with treatments; different versions of fracture liaison service have emerged to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures. But the cost-effectiveness of a less intensive model is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening program, a fracture liaison service that had been educating and referring fragility fracture patients across Ontario, Canada to receive bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatments since 2007. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the program over the patients' remaining lifetime, using rates of bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment and cost of intervention from the program, and supplemented it with the published literature. The analysis took the perspective of a third-party health-care payer. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5 % per year. Sensitivity analyses assessed the effects of different assumptions on the results. RESULTS: The program improved quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 4.3 years and led to increased costs of CAD $83,000 for every 1000 patients screened, at a cost of $19,132 per QALY gained. The enhanced model, the Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Fast Track program that includes ordering bone mineral density testing, was even more cost-effective ($5720 per QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: The Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening program appears to be a cost-effective way to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures.
UNLABELLED: The cost-effectiveness of a less intensive fracture liaison service is unknown. We evaluated a fracture liaison service that had been educating and referring patients for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for 6 years. Our results suggest that a less intensive fracture liaison service, with moderate effectiveness, can still be worthwhile. INTRODUCTION:Fragility fractures are common among older patients; the risk of re-fracture is high but could be reduced with treatments; different versions of fracture liaison service have emerged to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures. But the cost-effectiveness of a less intensive model is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening program, a fracture liaison service that had been educating and referring fragility fracturepatients across Ontario, Canada to receive bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatments since 2007. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the program over the patients' remaining lifetime, using rates of bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment and cost of intervention from the program, and supplemented it with the published literature. The analysis took the perspective of a third-party health-care payer. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5 % per year. Sensitivity analyses assessed the effects of different assumptions on the results. RESULTS: The program improved quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 4.3 years and led to increased costs of CAD $83,000 for every 1000 patients screened, at a cost of $19,132 per QALY gained. The enhanced model, the Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Fast Track program that includes ordering bone mineral density testing, was even more cost-effective ($5720 per QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: The Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening program appears to be a cost-effective way to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures.
Authors: D Marsh; K Akesson; D E Beaton; E R Bogoch; S Boonen; M-L Brandi; A R McLellan; P J Mitchell; J E M Sale; D A Wahl Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Patrick Haentjens; Jay Magaziner; Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Dirk Vanderschueren; Koen Milisen; Brigitte Velkeniers; Steven Boonen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Beatrice J Edwards; Andrew D Bunta; Christine Simonelli; Mark Bolander; Lorraine A Fitzpatrick Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Catherine MacLean; Sydne Newberry; Margaret Maglione; Maureen McMahon; Veena Ranganath; Marika Suttorp; Walter Mojica; Martha Timmer; Alicia Alexander; Melissa McNamara; Sheetal B Desai; Annie Zhou; Susan Chen; Jason Carter; Carlo Tringale; Di Valentine; Breanne Johnsen; Jennifer Grossman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: D E Beaton; M Vidmar; K B Pitzul; R Sujic; N K Rotondi; E R Bogoch; J E M Sale; R Jain; J Weldon Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: H Blain; T Masud; P Dargent-Molina; F C Martin; E Rosendahl; N van der Velde; J Bousquet; A Benetos; C Cooper; J A Kanis; J Y Reginster; R Rizzoli; B Cortet; M Barbagallo; K E Dreinhöfer; B Vellas; S Maggi; T Strandberg Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016 Impact factor: 4.075