Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 1147–1154 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life during the first year after a hip fracture: results of the Mexican arm of the International Cost and Utility Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (MexICUROS)

  • L. Guirant
  • F. Carlos
  • D. Curiel
  • J. A. Kanis
  • F. Borgström
  • A. Svedbom
  • P. ClarkEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

We investigated changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to hip fracture in Mexican adults aged ≥ 50 years during the first year post-fracture. Mean accumulated loss was 0.27 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). HRQoL before fracture was the main contributor to explain the loss of QALYs.

Introduction

We aimed to estimate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) loss over 1 year in patients sustaining a hip fracture in Mexico.

Methods

Individuals aged ≥ 50 years old with diagnosis of a low-energy-induced hip fracture enrolled in the International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS) composed the study population. After a recall of their own pre-fracture status, HRQoL was prospectively collected in three phases over 12 months of follow-up using EQ-5D-3L. The UK preference weight set was applied to calculate the utility values. The accumulated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) loss in the first year post-fracture was estimated using the trapezoid method. Multivariate regression analysis allowed identifying determinants of QALYs loss.

Results

One hundred ninety-three patients (mean ± SD age 77.2 ± 9.9 years; 80% women; 15.5% with prior fracture in the last 5 years; 78% in low-income category) were evaluated. Mean (95% CI) utility value before fracture was 0.64 (0.59–0.68). It dropped to 0.01 (0.01–0.02) immediately after fracture and then improved to 0.46 (0.42–0.51) and 0.60 (0.55–0.64) at 4 and 12 months post-fracture, respectively. Disregarding fracture-related mortality, accumulated QALYs loss over the first year was 0.27 (0.24–0.30) QALYs. Mobility, self-care, and usual activities were the most affected domains throughout the whole year. HRQoL before fracture was the main contributor to explain the loss of QALYs.

Conclusions

Hip fractures reduce dramatically the HRQoL, with the loss sustained at least over the first year post-fracture in Mexico. The utility values derived from this study can be used in future economic evaluations.

Keywords

Hip fracture ICUROS Osteoporosis Quality of life 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. Alejandro Ríos from Hospital Ángeles Mocel, Dr. Guillermo García Pinto from Hospital Central Militar, Dr. Mauricio Sierra Pérez from Hospital Central Norte de PEMEX, Dr. Federico Cisneros from Hospital de Traumatología y Ortopedia Lomas Verdes IMSS, and Dr. Margarita Valdés and Dr. Eric Hazam from the Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Guillermo Ibarra, SS, for their invaluable help in interviewing their patients.

Funding information

This study was supported by CONACyT Grant No. 87106.

Compliance with ethical standards

The study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki, informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the Research and Ethics Committees in each of the participant institutions approved the protocol.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary material

198_2018_4389_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (361 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 360 kb).

References

  1. 1.
    Prevention and management of osteoporosis (2003). World Health Organization Technical Report Series 921:1–164, back coverGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arden NK, Nevitt MC, Lane NE, Gore LR, Hochberg MC, Scott JC, Pressman AR, Cummings SR (1999) Osteoarthritis and risk of falls, rates of bone loss, and osteoporotic fractures. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Arthritis Rheum 42(7):1378–1385.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(199907)42:7<1378::AID-ANR11>3.0.CO;2-I CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark P, Tamayo JA, Cisneros F, Rivera FC, Valdes M (2013) Epidemiology of osteoporosis in Mexico. Present and future directions. Rev Invest Clin 65(2):183–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johansson H, Clark P, Carlos F, Oden A, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA (2011) Increasing age- and sex-specific rates of hip fracture in Mexico: a survey of the Mexican Institute of Social Security. Osteoporos Int 22(8):2359–2364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1475-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359(9319):1761–1767.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08657-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pereira SR, Puts MT, Portela MC, Sayeg MA (2010) The impact of prefracture and hip fracture characteristics on mortality in older persons in Brazil. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(7):1869–1883.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1147-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, Brazier JE (2009) An updated systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporos Int 20(6):853–868.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0844-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O, Lidgren L, Ponzer S, Svensson O, Abdon P, Ornstein E, Lunsjo K, Thorngren KG, Sernbo I, Rehnberg C, Jonsson B (2006) Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 17(5):637–650.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-0015-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ramirez-Perez E, Clark P, Carlos F, Camacho A, Franco-Marina F (2014) Health-related quality of life after surgery for hip fracture: a multicentric study in Mexican population. Medwave 14(5):e5972.  https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2014.05.5972 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borgstrom F, Lekander I, Ivergard M, Strom O, Svedbom A, Alekna V, Bianchi ML, Clark P, Curiel MD, Dimai HP, Jurisson M, Kallikorm R, Lesnyak O, McCloskey E, Nassonov E, Sanders KM, Silverman S, Tamulaitiene M, Thomas T, Tosteson AN, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (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(3):811–823.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2240-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    EuroQol. (2017). http://www.euroqol.org Accessed 25 Feb 2017
  12. 12.
    Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35(11):1095–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walters SJ (2009) Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation, vol 84. John Wiley & Sons ednGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feuer EJ, Kessler LG (1989) Test statistic and sample size for a two-sample McNemar test. Biometrics 45(2):629–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton E, Staniszewska S (2017) Patient-reported outcome measures in older people with hip fracture: a systematic review of quality and acceptability. Qual Life Res 26(4):799–812.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1424-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abimanyi-Ochom J, Watts JJ, Borgstrom F, Nicholson GC, Shore-Lorenti C, Stuart AL, Zhang Y, Iuliano S, Seeman E, Prince R, March L, Cross M, Winzenberg T, Laslett LL, Duque G, Ebeling PR, Sanders KM (2015) Changes in quality of life associated with fragility fractures: Australian arm of the International Cost and Utility Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (AusICUROS). Osteoporos Int 26(6):1781–1790.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3088-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jurisson M, Pisarev H, Kanis J, Borgstrom F, Svedbom A, Kallikorm R, Lember M, Uuskula A (2016) Quality of life, resource use, and costs related to hip fracture in Estonia. Osteoporos Int 27(8):2555–2566.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3544-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 25(8):1987–1997.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2636-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caeiro JR, Bartra A, Mesa-Ramos M, Etxebarria I, Montejo J, Carpintero P, Sorio F, Gatell S, Farre A, Canals L (2017) Burden of first osteoporotic hip fracture in Spain: a prospective, 12-month, observational study. Calcif Tissue Int 100(1):29–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-016-0193-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marques A, Lourenco O, da Silva JA (2015) The burden of osteoporotic hip fractures in Portugal: costs, health related quality of life and mortality. Osteoporos Int 26(11):2623–2630.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3171-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Griffin XL, Parsons N, Achten J, Fernandez M, Costa ML (2015) Recovery of health-related quality of life in a United Kingdom hip fracture population. The Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation—a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 97-B(3):372–382.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B3.35738 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gjertsen JE, Baste V, Fevang JM, Furnes O, Engesaeter LB (2016) Quality of life following hip fractures: results from the Norwegian hip fracture register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:265.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1111-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marsh J, Bryant D, MacDonald SJ (2009) Older patients can accurately recall their preoperative health status six weeks following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(12):2827–2837.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01415 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de MéxicoMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.R A C Salud Consultores, S.A. de C.V.Mexico CityMexico
  3. 3.Faculty of Medicine UNAMMexico CityMexico
  4. 4.SSPDF C.S. TII HortenciaMexico CityMexico
  5. 5.Centre for Metabolic Bone DiseasesUniversity of Sheffield Medical SchoolSheffieldUK
  6. 6.Institute for Health and AgeingCatholic University of AustraliaMelbourneAustralia
  7. 7.LIME/MMCKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  8. 8.MapiStockholmSweden
  9. 9.Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Facultad de Medicina UNAMHospital Infantil Federico GómezMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations