Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Interventions to Improve Quality of Care After Upper Extremity Fracture: Results From a Randomized Trial (C-STOP Trial).

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.

Comparing Strategies Targeting Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures After an Upper Extremity Fracture (C-STOP Trial): A Randomized Controlled Trial.

We compared osteoporosis care after upper extremity fragility fracture using a low-intensity Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) versus a high-intensity FLS in a pragmatic patient-level parallel-arm comparative effectiveness trial undertaken at a Canadian academic hospital. A low-intensity FLS (active-control) that identified patients and notified primary care providers was compared to a high-intensity FLS (case manager) where a specially-trained nurse identified patients, investigated bone health, and initiated appropriate treatment. A total of 361 community-dwelling participants 50 years or older with upper extremity fractures who were not on bisphosphonate treatment were included; 350 (97%) participants completed 6-month follow-up undertaken by assessors blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was difference in bisphosphonate treatment between groups 6 months postfracture; secondary outcomes included differences in bone mineral density (BMD) testing and a predefined composite measure termed "appropriate care" (taking or making an informed decision to decline medication for those with low BMD; not taking bisphosphonate treatment for those with normal BMD). Absolute differences (%), relative risks (RR with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]), number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and direct costs were compared. A total of 181 participants were randomized to active-control and 180 to case-manager using computer-generated randomization; the groups were similar on study entry. At 6 months, 51 (28%) active-control versus 86 (48%) case-manager participants started bisphosphonate treatment (20% absolute difference; RR 1.70; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.24; p < 0.0001; NNT = 5). Of active-controls, 108 (62%) underwent BMD testing compared to 128 (73%) case-managed patients (11% absolute difference; RR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.36; p = 0.03). Appropriate care was received by 76 (44%) active-controls and 133 (76%) case-managed participants (32% absolute difference; RR 1.73; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.09; p < 0.0001). The direct cost per participant was $18 Canadian (CDN) for the active-control intervention compared to $66 CDN for the case-manager intervention. In summary, case-management led to substantially greater improvements in bisphosphonate treatment and appropriate care within 6 months of fracture than the active control. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Cost-effectiveness of two inexpensive postfracture osteoporosis interventions: results of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Most older patients are not treated for osteoporosis after fragility fracture. In a 3-armed randomized trial, we reported that 2 inexpensive mail-based interventions, one directed at physicians and the other at physicians plus patients, increased 1-year osteoporosis treatment starts by 4% and 6% (respectively) compared with usual care starts of 11%. The cost-effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness of interventions compared with usual care was assessed using Markov decision-analytic models. Costs were expressed in 2010 Canadian dollars and long-term effectiveness based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained derived from hypothetical model simulations. The perspective was third-party health care payer; the time horizon was lifetime; and the costs and benefits were discounted 3%. RESULTS: The physician intervention cost was $7.12 per patient, whereas the physician plus patient intervention cost was $8.45. Compared with usual care, the economic simulation demonstrated that for every 1000 patients getting the physician intervention, there were 2 fewer fractures, 2 more QALYs gained, and $22,000 saved. Compared with physician intervention, the simulation demonstrated that for every 1000 patients receiving physician plus patient intervention, there was 1 fewer fracture and 1 more QALY gained, with $18,000 saved. Both interventions dominated usual care and were cost saving or highly cost effective in 67% of 10 000 probabilistic simulations. Although the physician plus patient intervention cost was $1.33 more per patient than the physician intervention, it was still the most economically attractive option. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic mail-based interventions directed at patients with recent fractures and their physicians are a highly cost-effective means to improving osteoporosis management and both interventions dominated usual care.

Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions for 'incidental' vertebral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Vertebral fractures detected "incidentally" by chest radiograph usually do not trigger osteoporosis treatment in older patients. In a 3-arm controlled trial we reported that both physician-directed and enhanced (physician plus patient activation) interventions increased treatment rates more than 10-fold (15%-20% absolute increases) compared with usual care; the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. METHODS: Incremental cost-effectiveness of these 2 interventions compared with usual care was assessed using a Markov decision-analytic model, populated with 1-year outcomes data and direct intervention costs from the trial. Costs were expressed in 2009 Canadian dollars and effectiveness based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The perspective was health care payer; horizon was projected lifetime; costs and benefits were discounted at 3%; and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Per patient, the physician and enhanced interventions cost $34 and $42, respectively. Compared with usual care, for every 1000 patients exposed to the physican intervention there were 4 fewer fractures, 8 more QALYs gained, and $282,000 saved. Compared with physician interventions, for every 1000 patients exposed to enhanced interventions there were 6 fewer fractures, 6 more QALYs gained, and $339,000 saved. Both interventions dominated usual care and were cost-effective in ~80% of 10,000 probabilistic simulations. Although the enhanced intervention cost $8 more per patient, it still dominated the physician intervention and usual care, and was the most economically attractive option. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic and inexpensive interventions directed at patients with incidentally detected vertebral fractures and their physicians are highly cost-effective at improving osteoporosis treatment, and in most circumstances also are cost-saving.

Interventions to increase osteoporosis treatment in patients with 'incidentally' detected vertebral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Most vertebral compression fractures are not recognized or treated. We conducted a controlled trial in older patients with vertebral fractures incidentally reported on chest radiographs, comparing usual care with osteoporosis interventions directed at physicians (opinion-leader-endorsed evidence summaries and reminders) or physicians+patients (adding activation with leaflets and telephone counseling). METHODS: Patients aged >60 years who were discharged home from emergency departments and who had vertebral fractures reported but were not treated for osteoporosis were allocated to usual care (control) or physician intervention using alternate-week time series. After 3 months, untreated controls were re-allocated to physician+patient intervention. Allocation was concealed, outcomes ascertainment blinded, and analyses intent-to-treat. Primary outcome was starting osteoporosis treatment within 3 months. RESULTS: There were 1315 consecutive patients screened, and 240 allocated to control (n=123) or physician intervention (n=117). Groups were similar at baseline (average age 74 years, 45% female, 58% previous fractures). Compared with controls, physician interventions significantly (all P <.001) increased osteoporosis treatment (20 [17%] vs 2 [2%]), bone mineral density testing (51 [44%] vs 5 [4%]), and bone mineral density testing or treatment (57 [49%] vs 7 [6%]). Three months after controls were re-allocated to physician+patient interventions, 22% had started treatment and 65% had bone mineral density testing or treatment (P <.001 vs controls). Physician+patient interventions increased bone mineral density testing or treatment an additional 16% compared with physician interventions (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: An opinion-leader-based intervention targeting physicians substantially improved rates of bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment in patients with incidental vertebral fractures, compared with usual care. Even better osteoporosis management was achieved by adding patient activation to physician interventions [NCT00388908].

Facilitated bone mineral density testing versus hospital-based case management to improve osteoporosis treatment for hip fracture patients: additional results from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: We previously demonstrated that a case manager intervention improved osteoporosis (OP) treatment within 6 months of hip fracture compared with usual care. The second phase of the randomized trial compared a less intensive intervention, facilitated bone mineral density (BMD) testing, with usual care and the case manager intervention. METHODS: We initially randomized 220 hip fracture patients to either an OP case manager intervention or usual care. After completing the original trial at 6 months postfracture, usual care patients were reallocated to facilitated BMD testing; BMD tests were arranged and results sent to primary care physicians. Main outcomes (bisphosphonate treatment, BMD tests, receipt of appropriate care) were reascertained 1 year following hip fracture and compared with outcomes achieved by the OP case manager intervention and usual care. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, facilitated BMD testing increased testing from 29% to 68% (P < 0.001), bisphosphonate use from 22% to 38% (P < 0.001), and receipt of appropriate care from 26% to 45% (P < 0.001). The more intensive (70 versus 30 minutes) and expensive ($56 versus $24 Canadian per patient) OP case manager intervention led to significantly higher bisphosphonate use (54% versus 38%; P = 0.03), receipt of appropriate care (71% versus 45%; P < 0.001), and more BMD testing (80% versus 68%; P = 0.06) than usual care followed by facilitated BMD testing. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, 2 different inexpensive interventions resulted in significant increases in appropriate management of OP after hip fracture. The magnitude of improvements achieved was directly related to the intensity of the interventions.

Osteoporosis case manager for patients with hip fractures: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized trial of patients with hip fractures, we previously demonstrated that a hospital-based case manager could increase rates of appropriate osteoporosis treatment to 51% compared with 22% for usual care (P < .001). Alongside that trial, we conducted an economic analysis. METHODS: Patients with hip fractures were randomized to usual care (n = 110) or a case manager (n = 110) and followed up for 1 year. Time-motion studies were used to determine intervention costs. From a third-party health care payer perspective and over the patient's remaining lifetime, a Markov decision-analytic model was constructed to determine cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared with usual care. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% and expressed in 2006 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: The intervention cost CaD $56 per patient. Compared with usual care, the intervention strategy was dominant: for every 100 patients case managed, 6 fractures (4 hip fractures) were prevented, 4 quality-adjusted life-years were gained, and CaD $260 000 was saved by the health care system. Irrespective of the number of patients case managed, the intervention reached a break-even threshold within 2 years. The intervention dominated usual care over the entire spectrum of 1-way sensitivity analyses and was cost-saving in 82% of probabilistic model simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, we found that using a case manager for patients with hip fractures increased rates of appropriate osteoporosis treatment. The intervention dominated usual care, and the analysis suggests that systems implementing an intervention similar to ours should expect to see a reduction in fractures, gains in life expectancy, and substantial cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00175175.

Use of a case manager to improve osteoporosis treatment after hip fracture: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients who survive hip fracture are at high risk of recurrent fractures, but rates of osteoporosis treatment 1 year after sustaining a fracture are less than 10% to 20%. We have developed an osteoporosis case manager intervention. The case manager educated patients, arranged bone mineral density tests, provided prescriptions, and communicated with primary care physicians. The intervention was compared with usual care in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We recruited from all hospitals that participate in the Capital Health system (Alberta, Canada), including patients 50 years or older who had sustained a hip fracture and excluding those who were receiving osteoporosis treatment or who lived in a long-term care facility. Primary outcome was bisphosphonate therapy 6 months after fracture; secondary outcomes included bone mineral density testing, appropriate care (bone mineral density testing and treatment if bone mass was low), and intervention costs. RESULTS: We screened 2219 patients and allocated 220, as follows: 110 to the intervention group and 110 to the control group. Median age was 74 years, 60% were women, and 37% reported having had previous fractures. Six months after hip fracture, 56 patients in the intervention group (51%) were receiving bisphosphonate therapy compared with 24 patients in the control group (22%) (adjusted odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-8.9; P < .001). Bone mineral density tests were performed in 88 patients in the intervention group (80%) vs 32 patients in the control group (29%) (P < .001). Of the 120 patients who underwent bone mineral density testing, 25 (21%) had normal bone mass. Patients in the intervention group were more likely to receive appropriate care than were patients in the control group (67% vs 26%; P < .001). The average intervention cost was $50.00 per patient. CONCLUSION: For a modest cost, a case manager was able to substantially increase rates of osteoporosis treatment in a vulnerable elderly population at high risk of future fractures.