Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of life for up to 18 months after low-energy hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fractures—results from the ICUROS

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

This study used data from the International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic fractures Study (ICUROS) to estimate the quality of life (QoL) impact of fracture. Hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fractures incur substantial QoL losses. Hip and vertebral fracture results in markedly impaired QoL for at least 18 months.

Introduction

The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic fractures Study (ICUROS) is a multinational observational study that aims to describe costs and quality of life (QoL) consequences of osteoporotic fractures. To date, 11 countries have participated in the study: Australia, Austria, Estonia, France, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the USA. The objective of this paper is to describe the QoL impact of hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fracture.

Methods

Data were collected at four time-points for five QoL point estimates: within 2 weeks after fracture (including pre-fracture recall) and at 4, 12, and 18 months after fracture. Quality of life was measured as health state utility values (HSUVs) derived from the EQ-5D-3L. Complete case analysis was conducted as the base case with available case and multiple imputation performed as sensitivity analyses. Multivariate analysis was performed to explore predictors of QoL impact of fracture.

Results

Among 5456 patients enrolled using convenience sampling, 3021 patients were eligible for the base case analysis (1415 hip, 1047 distal forearm, and 559 vertebral fractures). The mean (SD) difference between HSUV before and after fracture for hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fracture was estimated at 0.89 (0.40), 0.67 (0.45), and 0.48 (0.34), respectively (p < 0.001 for all fracture types). Eighteen months after fracture, mean HSUVs were lower than before the fracture in patients with hip fracture (0.66 vs. 0.77 p < 0.001) and vertebral fracture (0.70 vs. 0.83 p < 0.001). Hospitalization and higher recalled pre-fracture QoL were associated with increased QoL impact for all fracture types.

Conclusions

Hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fractures incur substantial loss in QoL and for patients with hip or vertebral fracture, QoL is markedly impaired for at least 18 months.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359(9321):1929–1936. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08761-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dyer SM, Crotty M, Fairhall N, Magaziner J, Beaupre LA, Cameron ID, Sherrington C, Fragility Fracture Network Rehabilitation Research Special Interest G (2016) A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatr 16(1):158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0332-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Fischer S, Kapinos KA, Mulcahy A, Pinto L, Hayden O, Barron R (2017) Estimating the long-term functional burden of osteoporosis-related fractures. Osteoporos Int 28(10):2843–51

  4. Hallberg I, Rosenqvist AM, Kartous L, Lofman O, Wahlstrom O, Toss G (2004) Health-related quality of life after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:834–841

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Klop C, Welsing PM, Cooper C, Harvey NC, Elders PJ, Bijlsma JW, Leufkens HG, de Vries F (2014) Mortality in British hip fracture patients, 2000-2010: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Bone 66:171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2014.06.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tran T, Bliuc D, van Geel T, et al (2017) Population-wide impact of non-hip non-vertebral fractures on mortality. J Bone Miner Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3118

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Papadimitriou N, Tsilidis KK, Orfanos P et al (2017) Burden of hip fracture using disability-adjusted life-years: a pooled analysis of prospective cohorts in the CHANCES consortium. Lancet Public Health 2:239–246

  9. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (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(1-2):136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Blume SW, Curtis JR (2011) Medical costs of osteoporosis in the elderly Medicare population. Osteoporos Int 22(6):1835–1844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1419-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  12. Oppe M, Devlin NJ, Szende A (2007) EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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 25:1987–1997

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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(3):811–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2240-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O et al (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Olerud P, Tidermark J, Ponzer S, Ahrengart L, Bergstrom G (2011) Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20(8):1200–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tidermark J, Bergstrom G (2007) Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab 16(2):321–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9004-4

    Google Scholar 

  18. Haywood KL, Griffin XL, Achten J, Costa ML (2014) Developing a core outcome set for hip fracture trials. Bone Joint J 96-B(8):1016–1023. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B8.33766

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35(11):1095–1108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coretti S, Ruggeri M, McNamee P (2014) The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14(2):221–233. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.894462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rubin DB (2004) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  22. Barber JA, Thompson SG (2000) Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 19(23):3219–3236. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23<3219::AID-SIM623>3.0.CO;2-P

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Adachi J, Ioannidis G, Berger C, Joseph L, Papaioannou A, Pickard L, Papadimitropoulos E, Hopman W, Poliquin S, Prior J (2001) The influence of osteoporotic fractures on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling men and women across Canada. Osteoporos Int 12(11):903–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980170017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Papaioannou A, Kennedy C, Ioannidis G, Sawka A, Hopman W, Pickard L, Brown J, Josse R, Kaiser S, Anastassiades T (2009) The impact of incident fractures on health-related quality of life: 5 years of data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 20(5):703–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0743-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rohde G, Haugeberg G, Mengshoel AM, Moum T, Wahl AK (2009) No long-term impact of low-energy distal radius fracture on health-related quality of life and global quality of life: a case-control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10(1):106. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-10-106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Herman A, Botser IB, Tenenbaum S, Chechick A (2009) Intention-to-treat analysis and accounting for missing data in orthopaedic randomized clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(9):2137–2143. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dimai HP, Svedbom A, Fahrleitner-Pammer A, Resch H, Muschitz C, Thaler H, Szivak M, Amrein K, Borgstrom F (2014) Epidemiology of distal forearm fractures in Austria between 1989 and 2010. Osteoporos Int 25(9):2297–2306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2766-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tarantino U, Capone A, Planta M, D'Arienzo M, Letizia Mauro G, Impagliazzo A, Formica A, Pallotta F, Patella V, Spinarelli A, Pazzaglia U, Zarattini G, Roselli M, Montanari G, Sessa G, Privitera M, Verdoia C, Corradini C, Feola M, Padolino A, Saturnino L, Scialdoni A, Rao C, Iolascon G, Brandi ML, Piscitelli P (2010) The incidence of hip, forearm, humeral, ankle, and vertebral fragility fractures in Italy: results from a 3-year multicenter study. Arthritis Res Ther 12(6):R226. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar3213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Lesnyak O, Ershova O, Belova K, Gladkova E, Sinitsina O, Ganert O, Romanova M, Khodirev V, Johansson H, McCloskey E, Kanis JA (2012) Epidemiology of fracture in the Russian Federation and the development of a FRAX model. Arch Osteoporos 7(1-2):67–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-012-0082-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Quality of Life and Epidemiology Working Group of the Committee of Scientific Advisors for the International Osteoporosis Foundation under whose supervision this study was undertaken. On its international level, the ICUROS is sponsored by Amgen, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and Pfizer. In Australia, the study is supported by project grant no. 628422 from the National Health and Medical Research Council. In Austria, the study is sponsored by Central Association of Austrian Social Security Institution (Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger), Austrian Society for Bone and Mineral Research (AuSBMR), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier GmbH, Medtronic GmbH, Amgen GmbH, Novartis GmbH, Nycomed GmbH, Roche GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, and Daiichi-Sankyo GmbH. In France, we would like to thank Prs Bernard Cortet, Roland Chapurlat, Patrice Fardellone, Philippe Orcel, and Christian Roux for their work. In Mexico, the study was supported by CONACyT grant no. El 2008-01-87106, and we are grateful to Gabriela Chico, Master Student, Mexico City and Fernando Carlos, MHE, Mexico City. In Lithuania, the work was supported by National Osteoporosis Center, and gratitude is extended to Dr. Violeta Sinkeviciene and Inga Tamulaityte-Morozoviene (Faculty of Medicine of Vilnius University) for skillful technical assistance. In Russia, the following team members provided valuable contributions to the study: Dr. Oxana Nikitinskaya, Dr. Olga Dobrovolskaya (Institute of Rheumatology, RAS, Moscow), Prof. Larissa Menshikova, Dr. Julia Varavko (Medical Institute of Postgraduate Training, Irkutsk), Prof. Olga Ershova, Dr. Ksenia Belova (Yaroslavl State Medical University, Yaroslavl), Dr. Ksenia Usenko (Ural State Medical University, Yekaterinburg), Prof. Georgij Golubev, Dr. Vyacheslav Grebenshikov (Rostov-on-Don State Medical University, Rostov-on-Don), Prof. Eugenij Zotkin, Dr. Irina Zubkova (North-West Mechnikov State Medical University, Saint-Petersburg), Prof. Alexander Kochish, Dr. Sergej Ivanov (Vreden Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Saint-Petersburg), and Dr. Radik Nurligayanov (City Clinical Hospital # 21, Ufa). In the USA, Amgen Inc., Ingenix Pharmaceutical Services, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic Spine LLC, and Pfizer Inc. sponsored the study. Hoffmann La Roche and Amgen provided support. In Estonia, the study was supported by Estonian Science Foundation grant no. 9368. The global study team would like to thank Ingrid Lekander, Erik Landfeldt, Martin Kleman, Moa Ivergård, and Viktor Wintzell for contributing to the study. The following investigators provided valuable contributions to the Australian substudy: Prof JJ Watts and Professors GC Nicholson, E Seeman, R Prince, G Duque, T Winzenberg, L March, and PR Ebeling.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mapi, Stockholm, Sweden

    A. Svedbom & E. Hernlund

  2. LIME/MMC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    F. Borgstöm & O. Ström

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    V. Alekna & M. Tamulaitiene

  4. Bone Metabolism Unit, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, Milan, Italy

    M. L. Bianchi

  5. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hospital Infantil Federico Gómez and Faculty of Medicine UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico

    P. Clark

  6. Servicio de Medicina Interna/Enfermedades Metabolicas Oseas, Fundacion Jimenez Diaz, Madrid, Spain

    M. D. Curiel

  7. Catedra de Enfermedades Metabolicas Óseas, Universidad Autonoma, Madrid, Spain

    M. D. Curiel

  8. Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

    H. P. Dimai

  9. Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    M. Jürisson, R. Kallikorm, M. Lember & A. Uusküla

  10. Ural State Medical University, Yekaterinburg, Russia

    O. Lesnyak & A. Solodovnikov

  11. North West Mechnikov State Medical University, St. Petersburg, Russia

    O. Lesnyak

  12. Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing, Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    E. McCloskey

  13. Institute for Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, 3000, Australia

    K. M. Sanders & J. A. Kanis

  14. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    S. Silverman

  15. INSERM U1059, Lab Biologie Intégrée du Tissu Osseux, Service de Rhumatologie, CHU de Saint-Etienne, Université de Lyon, Saint-Etienne, France

    T. Thomas

  16. FSBSI “Scientific Research Institute of Rheumatology named after V.A.Nasonova, Moscow, Russia

    N. Toroptsova

  17. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, PA, USA

    A. N. A. Tosteson

  18. Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    B. Jönsson

  19. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK

    J. A. Kanis

Authors
  1. A. Svedbom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Borgstöm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Hernlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Ström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. Alekna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. L. Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. D. Curiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. H. P. Dimai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. Jürisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. R. Kallikorm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. M. Lember
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. O. Lesnyak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. E. McCloskey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. K. M. Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. S. Silverman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. A. Solodovnikov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. M. Tamulaitiene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. T. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. N. Toroptsova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. A. Uusküla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. A. N. A. Tosteson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. B. Jönsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. J. A. Kanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Svedbom.

Ethics declarations

The study adhered to the declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the relevant research ethics committees in each participating country. All patients provided their informed consent to participate and the patients could withdraw from the study at any time on their own request.

Conflicts of interest

On its international level, the ICUROS is sponsored by Amgen, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and Pfizer. In Australia, the study was supported by project grant no. 628422 from the National Health and Medical Research Council with supplementary funding from Merck Pty Ltd. In Austria, the study was sponsored by Central Association of Austrian Social Security Institution (Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger), Austrian Society for Bone and Mineral Research (AuSBMR), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier GmbH, Medtronic GmbH, Amgen GmbH, Novartis GmbH, Nycomed GmbH, Roche GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, and Daiichi-Sankyo GmbH. In Mexico, the study was supported by CONACyT grant no. El 2008-01-87106. In Lithuania, the work was supported by the National Osteoporosis Center. In the USA, Amgen Inc., Ingenix Pharmaceutical Services, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic Spine LLC, and Pfizer (formerly Wyeth) sponsored the study, and Hoffmann La Roche and Amgen provided support. In Estonia, the study was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation [grant no. 9368] and the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research [grant no. IUT 34-17, IUT 2-8]. In Russia, the study was supported by Hoffmann La Roche, Amgen, and the Russian Osteoporosis Association.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 76 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 13 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Svedbom, A., Borgstöm, F., Hernlund, E. et al. Quality of life for up to 18 months after low-energy hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fractures—results from the ICUROS. Osteoporos Int 29, 557–566 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4317-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4317-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation