Osteoporosis International

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 703–714 | Cite as

The impact of incident fractures on health-related quality of life: 5 years of data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study

  • A. Papaioannou
  • C. C. Kennedy
  • G. Ioannidis
  • A. Sawka
  • W. M. Hopman
  • L. Pickard
  • J. P. Brown
  • R. G. Josse
  • S. Kaiser
  • T. Anastassiades
  • D. Goltzman
  • M. Papadimitropoulos
  • A. Tenenhouse
  • J. C. Prior
  • W. P. Olszynski
  • J. D. Adachi
  • for the CaMos Study Group
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Using prospective data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos), we compared health utilities index (HUI) scores after 5 years of follow-up among participants (50 years and older) with and without incident clinical fractures. Incident fractures had a negative impact on HUI scores over time.

Introduction

This study examined change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) in those with and without incident clinical fractures as measured by the HUI.

Methods

The study cohort was 4,820 women and 1,783 men (50 years and older) from the CaMos. The HUI was administered at baseline and year 5. Participants were sub-divided into incident fracture groups (hip, rib, spine, forearm, pelvis, other) and were compared with those without these fractures. The effects of both time and fracture type on HUI scores were examined in multivariable regression analyses.

Results

Men and women with hip fractures, compared to those without, had lower HUI measures that ranged from −0.05 to −0.25. Both women and men with spine fractures had significant deficits on the pain attributes (−0.07 to −0.12). In women, self-care (−0.06), mobility and ambulation (−0.05) were also negatively impacted. Women with rib fractures had deficits similar to women with spine fractures, and these effects persisted over time. In men, rib fractures did not significantly affect HUI scores. Pelvic and forearm fractures did not substantially influence HUI scores.

Conclusion

The HUI was a sensitive measure of HRQL change over time. These results will inform economic analyses evaluating osteoporosis therapies.

Keywords

Cost–utility Epidemiology Fractures Health utilities index Osteoporosis Quality of life 

References

  1. 1.
    Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC et al (2000) Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int 11:556–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D et al (1999) Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 353:878–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leibson CL, Tosteson AN, Gabriel SE et al (2002) Mortality, disability, and nursing home use for persons with and without hip fracture: a population-based study. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:1644–1650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sernbo I, Johnell O (1993) Consequences of a hip fracture: a prospective study over 1 year. Osteoporos Int 3:148–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Papaioannou A, Wiktorowicz ME, Adachi JD et al (2000) Mortality, independence in living, and re-fracture, one year following hip fracture in Canadians. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 22:591–597Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papaioannou A, Adachi JD, Parkinson W et al (2001) Lengthy hospitalization associated with vertebral fractures despite control for comorbid conditions. Osteoporos Int 12:870–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Melton LJ III, Chrischilles EA, Cooper C et al (1992) Perspective. How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7:1005–1010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lips P (1997) Epidemiology and predictors of fractures associated with osteoporosis. Am J Med 103:3S–8SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson SA, Tenenhouse A, Robertson L (2000) Vertebral fracture definition from population-based data: preliminary results from the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 11:680–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adachi JD, Ioannidis G, Olszynski WP et al (2002) The impact of incident vertebral and non-vertebral fractures on health related quality of life in postmenopausal women. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 3:11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silverman SL, Cranney A (1997) Quality of life measurement in osteoporosis. J Rheumatol 24:1218–1221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papaioannou A, Kennedy CC, Ioannidis G et al (2006) Determinants of health-related quality of life in women with vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:355–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adachi JD, Ioannidis G, Pickard L et al (2003) The association between osteoporotic fractures and health-related quality of life as measured by the Health Utilities Index in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 14:895–904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Joseph L et al (2002) The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): background, rationale, methods. Can J Aging 18:376–387Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M et al (1995) Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 7:490–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D et al (2003) The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW et al (2001) The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med 33:375–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bowker SL, Pohar SL, Johnson JA (2006) A cross-sectional study of health-related quality of life deficits in individuals with comorbid diabetes and cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Barnabi F et al (2008) The feasibility and responsiveness of the health utilities index in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Qual Life Res 17:333–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang DT, Sesselberg HW, McNitt S et al (2007) Improved survival associated with prophylactic implantable defibrillators in elderly patients with prior myocardial infarction and depressed ventricular function: a MADIT-II substudy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 18:833–838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nichol G, Stiell IG, Hebert P et al (1999) What is the quality of life for survivors of cardiac arrest? A prospective study. Acad Emerg Med 6:95–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gold M, Franks P, Erickson P (1996) Assessing the health of the nation. The predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care 34:163–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manuel DG, Schultz SE, Kopec JA (2002) Measuring the health burden of chronic disease and injury using health adjusted life expectancy and the Health Utilities Index. J Epidemiol Community Health 56:843–850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cranney AB, Coyle D, Hopman WM et al (2005) Prospective evaluation of preferences and quality of life in women with hip fractures. J Rheumatol 32:2393–2399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    World Health Organization (WHO) (1998) Guidelines for preclinical evaluation and clinical trials in osteoporosis. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown JP, Josse RG (2002) 2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. CMAJ 167:S1–S34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Health Utilities Inc. (2007) HUInc: leaders in the utility assessment of health-related quality of life. Available at http://healthutilities biz
  28. 28.
    Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ et al (1996) Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 34:702–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359:1761–1767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Osnes EK, Lofthus CM, Meyer HE et al (2004) Consequences of hip fracture on activities of daily life and residential needs. Osteoporos Int 15:567–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hallberg I, Rosenqvist AM, Kartous L et al (2004) Health-related quality of life after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:834–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sawka AM, Thabane L, Papaioannou A et al (2005) Health-related quality of life measurements in elderly Canadians with osteoporosis compared to other chronic medical conditions: a population-based study from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 16:1836–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prieto L, Sacristan JA (2003) Problems and solutions in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gabriel SE, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ III et al (1999) Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should we use? Med Decis Mak 19:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM et al (1998) The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 128:793–800PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Papaioannou
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. C. Kennedy
    • 2
  • G. Ioannidis
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. Sawka
    • 4
  • W. M. Hopman
    • 5
  • L. Pickard
    • 2
    • 3
  • J. P. Brown
    • 6
  • R. G. Josse
    • 4
  • S. Kaiser
    • 7
  • T. Anastassiades
    • 5
  • D. Goltzman
    • 8
  • M. Papadimitropoulos
    • 4
    • 9
  • A. Tenenhouse
    • 8
  • J. C. Prior
    • 10
  • W. P. Olszynski
    • 11
  • J. D. Adachi
    • 2
    • 3
  • for the CaMos Study Group
  1. 1.McMaster University, Hamilton Health Sciences—Chedoke SiteHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.St. Joseph’s HospitalHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  6. 6.Laval UniversitySainte-FoyCanada
  7. 7.Dalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  8. 8.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  9. 9.Eli Lilly and CompanyTorontoCanada
  10. 10.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  11. 11.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations