Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 2555–2566 | Cite as

Quality of life, resource use, and costs related to hip fracture in Estonia

  • M. JürissonEmail author
  • H. Pisarev
  • J. Kanis
  • F. Borgström
  • A. Svedbom
  • R. Kallikorm
  • M. Lember
  • A. Uusküla
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

We assessed the impact of hip fracture on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs in Estonia. The mean 18-month HRQoL loss in quality adjusted life years (QALY) was estimated at 0.31, and the average cumulative cost from a societal perspective was 8146 euros per hip fracture patient.

Introduction

The aim of this study is to estimate the impact of hip fracture on HRQoL, resource consumption, and cost over 18 months after the fracture among individuals aged over 50 in Estonia.

Methods

A cohort of 205 hip fracture patients ≥50 years was followed up for 18 months. HRQoL was estimated before fracture (recall), after fracture, and at 4, 12, and 18 months using the EQ-5D instrument. Health care utilization and costs were obtained from a public health insurance fund database; social, informal, and indirect costs were estimated using patient-reported data.

Results

Hip fracture resulted in the mean 18-month HRQoL loss of 0.31 QALYs. The mean 18-months cumulative cost of hip fracture from a societal perspective was estimated at 8146 (95 % CI 6236–10717) euros per patient. Most of the cost was related to health care (56 %) and informal care (33 %), while social care contributed only 5 %. Utilization of outpatient rehabilitation and nursing care was low (8 % of patients).

Conclusions

The impact of hip fracture on HRQoL and cost was substantial. Despite appropriate inpatient care, utilization of rehabilitation, nursing care, and social care were low and potentially insufficient to meet the needs of patients with low HRQoL. The shortfall may partially explain a remarkably high use of informal care.

Keywords

Cost of illness Disease burden Estonia Health-related quality of life Hip fracture Osteoporosis Resource use 

Notes

Acknowledgments

ICUROS is a prospective observational study that follows patients for 18 months after a fracture, collecting data on HRQoL, resource utilization, and costs. The study is run under the auspices of the International Osteoporosis Foundation and has enrolled approximately 6000 patients in 11 countries worldwide, including Estonia, since 2007 [7].

The study was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation grant 9368, the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research grant SF0180060s09, the institutional research grants TARTH15017I (Health research in a continuum of the evidence based health practice in Estonia) and IUT 2-8.

Compliance with ethical standards

Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Tartu University.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary material

198_2016_3544_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (33 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 33 kb)
198_2016_3544_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (46 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 46 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Melton LJ (2003) Adverse outcomes of osteoporotic fractures in the general population. J Bone Miner Res 18:1139–1141. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.6.1139 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733. doi: 10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Odén A et al (2004) Mortality after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:38–42. doi: 10.1007/s00198-003-1490-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2005) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S3–S7. doi: 10.1007/s00198-004-1702-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrahamsen B, van Staa T, Ariely R et al (2009) Excess mortality following hip fracture: a systematic epidemiological review. Osteoporos Int 20:1633–1650. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-0920-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136. doi: 10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borgstrom F, Lekander I, Ivergard M et al (2013) The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS)—quality of life during the first 4 months after fracture. Osteoporos Int 24:811–823. doi: 10.1007/s00198-012-2240-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borgström F, Sobocki P, Ström O, Jönsson B (2007) The societal burden of osteoporosis in Sweden. Bone 40:1602–1609. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2007.02.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng S, Levy A, Lefaivre K (2011) Geographic trends in incidence of hip fractures: a comprehensive literature review. Osteoporos Int 22:2575–2586. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1596-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Odén A, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA et al (2015) Burden of high fracture probability worldwide: secular increases 2010-2040. Osteoporos Int 26:2243–2248. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3154-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ström O, Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N et al (2008) Long-term cost and effect on quality of life of osteoporosis-related fractures in Sweden. Acta Orthop 79:269–280. doi: 10.1080/17453670710015094 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borgström F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O et al (2006) Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 17:637–650. doi: 10.1007/s00198-005-0015-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rice DP (2000) Cost of illness studies: what is good about them? Inj Prev 6:177–179. doi: 10.1136/ip.6.3.177 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OECD Data. https://data.oecd.org/. Accessed 8 Jan 2016
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Jürisson M, Vorobjov S, Kallikorm R et al (2015) The incidence of hip fractures in Estonia, 2005-2012. Osteoporos Int 26:77–84. doi: 10.1007/s00198-014-2820-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    EuroQol. http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d.html. Accessed 13 Jul 2015
  18. 18.
    Estonian Health Insurance Fund. http://www.haigekassa.ee/. Accessed 15 Jul 2015
  19. 19.
    Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health States. Med Care 35:1095–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walters SJ (2009) Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Human Mortality Database. http://www.mortality.org/. Accessed 11 Feb 2016
  22. 22.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P et al (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43:1130–1139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quan H, Li B, Couris CM et al (2011) Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol 173:676–682. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq433 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Toson B, Harvey LA, Close JCT (2015) The ICD-10 Charlson Comorbidity Index predicted mortality but not resource utilization following hip fracture. J Clin Epidemiol 68:44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, et al. (2003) Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectivess analysis.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ministry of Social Affairs. http://www.sm.ee/en. Accessed 23 Jul 2015
  28. 28.
    City of Tallinn. http://www.tallinn.ee/eng/. Accessed 23 Jul 2015
  29. 29.
    Drummond MF (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Statistics Estonia / Statistikaamet. http://www.stat.ee/. Accessed 5 Feb 2016
  31. 31.
    World (WHO 2000-2025) Standard - Standard Populations - SEER Datasets. http://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/world.who.html. Accessed 2 Jul 2015
  32. 32.
    Si L, Winzenberg TM, de Graaff B, Palmer AJ (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporos Int. doi: 10.1007/s00198-014-2636-2 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ström O, Borgström F, Kanis JA et al (2011) Osteoporosis: burden, health care provision and opportunities in the EU: a report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 6:59–155. doi: 10.1007/s11657-011-0060-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dzajkovska B, Wertheimer AI, Mrhar A (2007) The burden-of-illness study on osteoporosis in the Slovenian female population. Pharm World Sci 29:404–411. doi: 10.1007/s11096-007-9091-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kudrna K, Krska Z (2005) Expense analysis of the proximal femoral fractures treatment. Rozhl Chir 84:631–634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stevenson M, Davis S, Kanis J (2006) The hospitalisation costs and out-patient costs of fragility fractures. Women’s Heal Med 3:149–151. doi: 10.1383/wohm.2006.3.4.149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lawrence TM, White CT, Wenn R, Moran CG (2005) The current hospital costs of treating hip fractures. Injury 36:88–91. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.06.015, discussion 92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nurmi I, Narinen A, Lüthje P, Tanninen S (2003) Cost analysis of hip fracture treatment among the elderly for the public health services: a 1-year prospective study in 106 consecutive patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123:551–554. doi: 10.1007/s00402-003-0583-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ohsfeldt RL, Borisov NN, Sheer RL (2006) Fragility fracture-related direct medical costs in the first year following a nonvertebral fracture in a managed care setting. Osteoporos Int 17:252–258. doi: 10.1007/s00198-005-1993-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dimai HP, Redlich K, Peretz M et al (2012) Economic burden of osteoporotic fractures in Austria. Health Econ Rev 2:12. doi: 10.1186/2191-1991-2-12 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Larg A, Moss JR (2011) Cost-of-illness studies: a guide to critical evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 29:653–671. doi: 10.2165/11588380-000000000-00000 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    The World Bank Group (2015) The State of health care integration in EstoniaGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Knies S, Evers SMAA, Candel MJJM et al (2009) Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics 27:767–779. doi: 10.2165/11314120-000000000-00000 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Jürisson
    • 1
    Email author
  • H. Pisarev
    • 1
  • J. Kanis
    • 2
  • F. Borgström
    • 3
  • A. Svedbom
    • 4
    • 5
  • R. Kallikorm
    • 6
  • M. Lember
    • 6
  • A. Uusküla
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public HealthUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Centre for Metabolic Bone DiseasesUniversity of Sheffield Medical SchoolSheffieldUK
  3. 3.Medical Management CentreKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  4. 4.MapigroupStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Unit of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska InstitutetKarolinska UniversitetssjukhusetStockholmSweden
  6. 6.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Tartu and Tartu University HospitalTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations