Journal Article

Economic evaluation of a population-based osteoporosis intervention for outpatients with non-traumatic non-hip fractures: the “Catch a Break” 1i type C FLS

Juby, A G, Lier, D A, Beaupre, L A, Majumdar, S R, Hanley, D A

2017

Overview

SummaryFracture liaison services (FLS) are advocated to improve osteoporosis treatment after fragility fracture, but there are few economic analyses of different models. A population-based 1i [=type C] FLS for non-hip fractures was implemented and it costs$44 per patient and it was very cost-effective ($ 9200 per QALY gained). Small operational changes would convert it from cost-effective to cost-saving.IntroductionAfter fragility fracture, <20% of patients receive osteoporosis treatment. FLS are recommended to address this deficit but there are very few economic analyses of different FLS models. Therefore, we conducted an economic analysis of a 1i (=type C) FLS called “Catch a Break (CaB).”MethodsCaB is a population-based FLS in Alberta, Canada, that case-finds older outpatients with non-traumatic upper extremity, spine, pelvis, or “other” non-hip fractures and provides telephonic outreach and printed educational materials to patients and their physicians. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using Markov decision-analytic models. Costs were expressed in 2014 Canadian dollars and effectiveness based on model simulations of recurrent fractures and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Perspective was healthcare payer; horizon was lifetime; and costs and benefits were discounted 3%.ResultsOver 1 year, CaB enrolled 7323 outpatients (mean age 67 years, 75% female, 69% upper extremity) at average cost of$44 per patient. Compared with usual care, CaB increased rates of bisphosphonate treatment by 4.3 to 17.5% (p < 0.001). Over their lifetime, for every 10,000 patients enrolled in CaB, 4 hip fractures (14 fractures total) would be avoided and 12 QALYs gained. Compared with usual care, incremental cost-effectiveness of CaB was estimated at $ 9200 per QALY. CaB was cost-effective in 85% of 10,000 probabilistic simulations. Sensitivity analyses showed if “other” fractures were excluded and intervention costs reduced 25% that CaB would become cost-saving.ConclusionsA relatively inexpensive population-based 1i (=type C) FLS was implemented in Alberta and it was very cost-effective. If CaB excluded “other” fractures and decreased intervention costs by 25%, it would be cost-saving, as would any FLS that was more effective and less expensive.

• Publisher: Springer Nature B.V
• Subject: Cost analysis / Economic analysis / Economics / Fractures / Hip / Osteoporosis / Patients / Pelvis / Population / Quality control / Sensitivity analysis / Spine