» Articles » PMID: 29460102

Economic Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Fracture Liaison Services: a Systematic Review of the Literature

Overview
Journal Osteoporos Int
Date 2018 Feb 21
PMID 29460102
Citations 51
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Fracture liaison services (FLS), implemented in different ways and countries, are reported to be a cost-effective or even a cost-saving secondary fracture prevention strategy. This presumed favorable cost-benefit relationship is encouraging and lends support to expanded implementation of FLS per International Osteoporosis Foundation Best Practice Standards. This study summarizes the economic impact and cost-effectiveness of FLS implemented to reduce subsequent fractures in individuals with osteoporosis. This systematic review identified studies reporting economic outcomes for FLS in osteoporotic patients aged 50 and older through a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and PubMed of studies published January, 2000 to December, 2016. Grey literature (e.g., Google scholar, conference abstracts/posters) were also hand searched through February 2017. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and conducted full-text review on qualified articles. All disagreements were resolved by discussion between reviewers to reach consensus or by a third reviewer. In total, 23 qualified studies that evaluated the economic aspects of FLS were included: 16 cost-effectiveness studies, 2 cost-benefit analyses, and 5 studies of cost savings. Patient populations varied (prior fragility fracture, non-vertebral fracture, hip fracture, wrist fracture), and FLS strategies ranged from mail-based interventions to comprehensive nurse/physician-coordinated programs. Cost-effectiveness studies were conducted in Canada, Australia, USA, UK, Japan, Taiwan, and Sweden. FLS was cost-effective in comparisons with usual care or no treatment, regardless of the program intensity or the country in which the FLS was implemented (cost/QALY from $3023-$28,800 US dollars (USD) in Japan to $14,513-$112,877 USD in USA. Several studies documented cost savings. FLS, implemented in different ways and countries, are reported to be cost-effective or even cost-saving. This presumed favorable cost-benefit relationship is encouraging and lends support to expanded implementation of FLS per International Osteoporosis Foundation Best Practice Standards.

Citing Articles

Treatment of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis in the Oldest Old.

Fuggle N, Laslop A, Rizzoli R, Al-Daghri N, Alokail M, Balkowiec-Iskra E Drugs. 2025; 85(3):343-360.

PMID: 39969778 PMC: 11891106. DOI: 10.1007/s40265-024-02138-w.


Actions to Improve the Secondary Prevention of Fragility Fractures in Women with Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Social Return on Investment (SROI) Study.

Olmo-Montes F, Caeiro-Rey J, Peris P, Perez Del Rio V, Etxebarria-Foronda I, Cancio-Trujillo J Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2024; 16:889-901.

PMID: 39735353 PMC: 11681784. DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S480674.


Vitamin K intake levels are associated with bone health in people aged over 50 years: a NHANES-based survey.

Guo J, Zhou Z, Gong J, Hu W, Liu Y Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1485095.

PMID: 39655236 PMC: 11625553. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1485095.


Factors Associated With Nonattendance for Osteoporosis Evaluation Following Fragility Fracture.

Seyok T, Collins J, Hodys C, Erikson S, Perez Menendez S, Earp B J Osteoporos. 2024; 2024:5602020.

PMID: 39650280 PMC: 11625084. DOI: 10.1155/joos/5602020.


Sentinel fracture: the necessity of improved post-fracture care.

Kerschan-Schindl K, Widhalm H, Pataraia A, Nicolakis P, Frossard M, Keilani M Wien Med Wochenschr. 2024; 175(1-2):3-10.

PMID: 39613909 PMC: 11774949. DOI: 10.1007/s10354-024-01066-4.


References
1.
Kanis J, Borgstrom F, Compston J, Dreinhofer K, Nolte E, Jonsson L . SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos. 2013; 8:144. PMC: 3880480. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-013-0144-1. View

2.
Yusuf A, Matlon T, Grauer A, Barron R, Chandler D, Peng Y . Utilization of osteoporosis medication after a fragility fracture among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. Arch Osteoporos. 2016; 11(1):31. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-016-0285-0. View

3.
Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon D, Wong J, King A, Tosteson A . Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2006; 22(3):465-75. DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.061113. View

4.
Colon-Emeric C, Kuchibhatla M, Pieper C, Hawkes W, Fredman L, Magaziner J . The contribution of hip fracture to risk of subsequent fractures: data from two longitudinal studies. Osteoporos Int. 2003; 14(11):879-83. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1460-x. View

5.
Fraser L, Ioannidis G, Adachi J, Pickard L, Kaiser S, Prior J . Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap in women: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int. 2010; 22(3):789-96. PMC: 5101074. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-010-1359-2. View