The cost of osteoporotic fractures in the UK: projections for 2000–2020

Burge, Russel; Worley, Dan; Johansen, Antony; Bhattacharyya, Samir; Bose, Uday

doi:10.3111/200104051062

Cited by 141 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…135 In the UK, the annual number of hip fractures is expected to increase from 79,000 to 104,000 by 2025. 135 Existing estimates of the health and social care costs of hip fractures in the UK range from £2B to £3B, 135,136 but UK estimates on hip fracture costs are limited and outdated. Hence the primary aim of this chapter is to estimate the primary care and hospital care costs of hip fracture up to 2 years post event for both index fracture and subsequent fracture, using large patient-level data sets representative of the UK hip fracture population.…”

Section: Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England

Judge

Javaid

Leal

et al. 2016

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms VOLUME 4 ISSUE 28 SEPTEMBER 2016 ISSN 2050 DOI 10.3310/hsdr04280 HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCHModels of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England Andrew Judge, M Kassim Javaid, José Leal, Samuel Hawley, Sarah Drew, Sally Sheard, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Janet Lippett, Andrew Farmer, Nigel Arden, Alastair Gray, Michael Goldacre, Antonella Delmestri and Cyrus Cooper Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England Declared competing interests of authors: Daniel Prieto-Alhambra has received unrestricted research and educational grants from Amgen and Bioibérica S.A. Nigel Arden reports personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Smith and Nephew, personal fees from Q-Med, personal fees from Nicox, personal fees from Flexion, personal fees from Bioibérica and personal fees from Servier. Cyrus Cooper has received consultancy fees, lecture fees and honoraria from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Alliance for Better Bone Health, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Servier, Medtronic and Roche. M Kassim Javaid has in the last 5 years received honoraria for travel expenses, speaker fees and/or advisory committees from Lilly UK, Amgen, Servier, MSD, Medtronic, Internis, Consilient Health and Jarrow Formulas. He also serves on the Scientific Committee of the National Osteoporosis Society and International Osteoporosis Foundation. Andrew Judge has received consultancy fees, lecture fees and honoraria from Servier, UK Renal Registry, Oxford Craniofacial Unit, IDIAP Jordi Gol and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, is a member of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board (which involved receipt of fees) from Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and received consortium research grants from Roche.Published September 2016 DOI: 10.3310/hsdr04280 This report should be referenced as follows:Judge A, Javaid MK, Leal J, Hawley S, Drew S, Sheard S, et al. Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England. Health Serv Deliv Res 2016;4(28). Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the repor...

show abstract

Section: Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England

Judge

Javaid

Leal

et al. 2016

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the social and economic burden related to VFs is far higher, since they strongly predict risks for further fractures, even at other sites, also independently from bone densitometric criteria [4,5]. For instance, direct medical costs from fragility fractures to only the UK healthcare economy were estimated at £1.8 billion in 2000 and are expected to rise to over £2 billion by 2020, with most of these costs related to hip fracture care [6].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and accuracy of scout CT in the detection of vertebral fractures

Bazzocchi

Fuzzi

Garzillo

et al. 2013

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the reliability of scout CT (sCT) lateral radiograph, in terms of diagnostic accuracy and intra-and interobserver agreement in the detection of vertebral fractures (VFs). Methods: 300 CT examinations of the thoracic and/or lumbar spine were collected and independently analysed by 3 musculoskeletal radiologists in 2 different sessions. A semi-quantitative approach was used for VF assessment on sCT, and morphometric analysis was performed when a VF was suspected. Results of multiplanar sagittal CT reconstructions interpreted by the most expert radiologist were considered as gold standard. Arthrosis was also scored. Only vertebral bodies assessable by both sCT and gold standard were considered for the analysis. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Cohen's kappa statistic and linear-by-linear association were used for statistical analysis.

show abstract

“…4,5 The expenditure on hip fracture in Germany in 2003 was 6 whilst fractures in the elderly were estimated to cost $14 billion in 2002 in the USA. 7 The risks of hip and vertebral fractures have been shown to be distributed exponentially in relation to age, 8 using Scottish data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions for Osteoporosis: Issues to Consider

Stevenson

Selby

2014

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expenditure on treating osteoporotic fractures and on preventative intervention is considerable and is likely to rise in forthcoming years due to the association between fracture risk and age. With funders such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee explicitly considering cost effectiveness analyses within the process of producing guidance it is imperative that economic models are as robust as possible. This paper details issues that need to be considered specifically related to health technology assessments of interventions for osteoporosis and highlights limitations within the current evidence base. A likely direction of impact on cost effectiveness of addressing the key issues has been included alongside a tentative categorisation of the likely level of these impacts. It is likely that cost effectiveness ratios presented in previous models which did not address the identified issues were favourable to interventions. Declared conflict of interests: Professor Stevenson has received grants from the National Institutefor Health Research to undertake health technology assessments within the disease area of osteoporosis. The department in which Professor Selby works has received research support from Amgen who manufacture drugs for the treatment of osteoporosis but he has received no personal financial support. Key points for decision makersIn order to accurately estimate the cost effectiveness of screening policies costs of identifying people with osteoporosis but without a recent fracture must be included Rigid adherence to the definition of osteoporosis, or using a single threshold value for fracture risk over a defined period of time in deciding whether to treat or not is unlikely to be optimal approaches in terms of efficient allocation of resources A tentative categorisation of the level of impact of addressing each issue has been produced.

show abstract

The cost of osteoporotic fractures in the UK: projections for 2000–2020

Cited by 141 publications

References 13 publications

Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England

Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England

Reliability and accuracy of scout CT in the detection of vertebral fractures

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions for Osteoporosis: Issues to Consider

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About