Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Jul;34(7):1220-1228. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3699. Epub 2019 Mar 18.
We assessed the cost-effectiveness of two models of osteoporosis care after upper extremity fragility fracture using a high-intensity Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) Case-Manager intervention versus a low-intensity FLS (ie, Active Control), and both relative to usual care. This analysis used data from a pragmatic patient-level parallel-arm comparative effectiveness trial of 361 community-dwelling participants 50 years or older with upper extremity fractures undertaken at a Canadian academic hospital. We used a decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the three treatment alternatives. The perspective was health service payer; the analytical horizon was lifetime; costs and health outcomes were discounted by 3%. Costs were expressed in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and the health effect was measured by quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The average age of enrolled patients was 63 years and 89% were female. Per patient cost of the Case Manager and Active Control interventions were $66CAD and $18CAD, respectively. Compared to the Active Control, the Case Manager saved $333,000, gained seven QALYs, and averted nine additional fractures per 1000 patients. Compared to usual care, the Case Manager saved $564,000, gained 14 QALYs, and incurred 18 fewer fractures per 1000 patients, whereas the Active Control saved $231,000, gained seven QALYs, and incurred nine fewer fractures per 1000 patients. Although both interventions dominated usual care, the Case Manager intervention also dominated the Active Control. In 5000 probabilistic simulations, the probability that the Case Manager intervention was cost-effective was greater than 75% whereas the Active Control intervention was cost-effective in less than 20% of simulations. In summary, although the adoption of either of these approaches into clinical settings should lead to cost savings, reduced fractures, and increased quality-adjusted life for older adults following upper extremity fracture, the Case Manager intervention would be the most likely to be cost-effective. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
我们评估了两种骨质疏松症护理模式的成本效益,一种是在上肢脆性骨折后采用高强度骨折联络服务(FLS)病例经理干预,另一种是采用低强度 FLS(即主动控制),这两种模式均与常规护理进行比较。该分析使用了来自加拿大一家学术医院进行的一项关于 361 名居住在社区的 50 岁及以上上肢骨折患者的实用患者水平平行臂比较有效性试验的数据。我们使用决策分析马尔可夫模型来评估三种治疗方案的成本效益。研究视角为卫生服务支付方;分析时间范围为终身;成本和健康结果贴现率为 3%。成本以 2016 年加拿大元(CAD)表示,健康效果以质量调整生命年(QALYs)衡量。入组患者的平均年龄为 63 岁,89%为女性。病例经理和主动控制干预的每位患者成本分别为 66 加元(CAD)和 18 加元(CAD)。与主动控制相比,病例经理可节省 333,000 加元,获得 7 个 QALYs,并避免每 1000 名患者增加 9 例骨折。与常规护理相比,病例经理可节省 564,000 加元,获得 14 个 QALYs,并减少每 1000 名患者 18 例骨折,而主动控制可节省 231,000 加元,获得 7 个 QALYs,并减少每 1000 名患者 9 例骨折。尽管两种干预措施均优于常规护理,但病例经理干预措施也优于主动控制。在 5000 次概率模拟中,病例经理干预措施具有成本效益的概率大于 75%,而主动控制干预措施在不到 20%的模拟中具有成本效益。总之,尽管在临床环境中采用这两种方法之一可能会导致成本节约、减少骨折和增加上肢骨折后老年人的质量调整生命,但病例经理干预措施最有可能具有成本效益。