IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Osteoporotic Fractures: A Systematic Review of US Healthcare Costs and Resource Utilization

  • Sangeeta Budhia

    (Heron Evidence Development Ltd, Luton, UK)

  • Yeshi Mikyas

    (Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)

  • Michael Tang

    (Heron Evidence Development Ltd, Luton, UK)

  • Enkhe Badamgarav

    (Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)

Registered author(s):

    Osteoporotic fractures are costly in terms of both the dollar amount and healthcare utilization. The objective of this review was to systematically synthesize published evidence regarding direct costs associated with the treatment of osteoporosis-related fractures in the US. We conducted a systematic literature review of published studies that used claims databases and economic studies reporting costs associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in the US. Studies published between 1990 and 2011 were systematically searched in PubMed (primary source), Ovid HealthSTAR, EMBASE and the websites of large agencies. Data concerning study design, patient population and cost components assessed were extracted with qualitative assessment of study methods, limitations and conclusions. Cost assessment included direct medical and hospitalization (inpatient) costs. The cost differences by age and gender were examined. Of the 33 included studies, 26 reported an estimated total medical cost and hospital resource use associated with osteoporotic fractures. These studies indicated that, in the year following a fracture, medical and hospitalization costs were 1.6-6.2 higher than pre-fracture costs and 2.2-3.5 times higher than those for matched controls. Analysis of the hospitalization costs by osteoporotic fracture type resulted in hip fractures identified as the most expensive fracture type (unit cost range $US8358-32 195), while wrist and forearm fractures were the least expensive (unit cost range $US1885-12 136). Although incremental fracture costs were generally lower in the elderly than in the younger population, total costs were highest for the older (≥65 years of age) population. Total healthcare costs for fractures were highest for the older female population, but unit fracture costs in women were not consistently found to be higher than for men. The qualitative assessment of the included studies demonstrated that the design and reporting of individual studies were of good quality. However, the findings of this review and comparisons across studies were limited by differences in methodologies used by the different studies to derive costs, the populations included in the studies used and the fracture assessment. Despite the variability in estimates, the literature indicates that osteoporosis-related fractures are associated with high total medical and hospitalization costs in the US. The variability in the cost estimates highlights the importance of comparing the methodologies and the types of costs used when choosing an appropriate unit cost for economic modelling.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 147-170

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:2:p:147-170
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:2:p:147-170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.