Joeris A, Sprague S, Blauth M, Gosch M, Wattanapanom P, Jarayabhand R, Poeze M, Wong MK, Kwek EBK, Hegeman JH, Perez-Uribarri C, Guerado E, Revak TJ, Zohner S, Joseph D, and Phillips MR
Introduction: Geriatric Fracture Centers (GFCs) are dedicated treatment units where care is tailored towards elderly patients who have suffered fragility fractures. The primary objective of this economic analysis was to determine the cost-utility of GFCs compared with usual care centres., Methods: The primary analysis was a cost-utility analysis that measured the cost per incremental quality-adjusted life-year gained from treatment of hip fracture in GFCs compared with treatment in usual care centres from the societal perspective over a 1-year time horizon. The secondary analysis was a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. We evaluated these outcomes using a cost-utility analysis using data from a large multicentre prospective cohort study comparing GFCs versus usual care centres that took place in Austria, Spain, the USA, the Netherlands, Thailand and Singapore., Results: GFCs may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. Patients in usual care centre group were slightly older and had fewer comorbidities. For the 1-year analysis, the costs per patient were slightly lower in the GFC group (-$646.42), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.034). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18 863.34 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year). The lifetime horizon analysis found that the costs per patient were lower in the GFC group (-$7210.35), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.02). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $320 678.77 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year)., Conclusions: This analysis found that GFCs were associated with lower costs compared with usual care centres. The cost-savings were greater when the lifetime time horizon was considered. This comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from an international prospective cohort study, found that GFC may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. A greater number of major adverse events were reported at GFC, nevertheless a lower mortality rate associated with these adverse events at GFC. Due to the minor utility benefits, which may be a result of greater adverse event detection within the GFC group and much greater costs of usual care centres, the GFC may be cost-effective due to the large cost-savings it demonstrated over the lifetime time horizon, while potentially identifying and treating adverse events more effectively. These findings suggest that the GFC may be a cost-effective option over the lifetime of a geriatric patient with hip fracture, although future research is needed to further validate these findings., Level of Evidence: Economic, level 2., Trial Registration Number: NCT02297581., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AJ—employed by AO Foundation. SS—paid employee of Global Research Solutions. JHH—board member of the Dutch Society for Trauma Surgery; chairman of the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit. EG—fees to institution to support research by AO Foundation; member of the EFFORT European Federation Orthopaedic and Trauma; former president of SECOT Spanish Orthopaedic and Trauma Society. TJR—support for presenting manuscript by AO Foundation. RJ—honoraria from regional faculty for AO Trauma. MB—grants and fees from Depuy Synthes. MG—honoraria from Amgen, advisory board with UCB Pharma, president elect of the German Geriatric Society. MP—paid employee of Global Research Solutions. PW, MP, EBKK, MKW, CP-U, SZ, DJ—no conflicts., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)