Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Geriatric Fracture Center (GFC) concept: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

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.

Geriatric fracture centre vs usual care after proximal femur fracture in older patients: what are the benefits? Results of a large international prospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of treatment in geriatric fracture centres (GFC) on the incidence of major adverse events (MAEs) in patients with hip fractures compared with usual care centres (UCC). Secondary objectives included hospital-workflow and mobility-related outcomes. DESIGN: Cohort study recruiting patients between June 2015 and January 2017. Follow-up was 1 year. SETTING: International (six countries, three continents) multicentre study. PARTICIPANTS: 281 patients aged ≥70 with operatively treated proximal femur fractures. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment in UCCs (n=139) or GFCs (n=142), that is, interdisciplinary treatment including regular geriatric consultation and daily physiotherapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was occurrence of prespecified MAEs, including delirium. Secondary outcomes included any other adverse events, time to surgery, time in acute ward, 1-year mortality, mobility, and quality of life. RESULTS: Patients treated in GFCs (n=142) had a mean age of 81.9 (SD, 6.6) years versus 83.9 (SD 6.9) years in patients (n=139) treated in UCCs (p=0.013) and a higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2.0 (SD, 2.1) versus 1.2 (SD, 1.5) in UCCs (p=0.001). More patients in GFCs (28.2%) experienced an MAE during the first year after surgery compared with UCCs (7.9%) with an OR of 4.56 (95% CI 2.23 to 9.34, p<0.001). Analysing individual MAEs, this was significant for pneumonia (GFC: 9.2%; UCC: 2.9%; OR, 3.40 (95% CI 1.08 to 10.70), p=0.027) and delirium (GFC: 11.3%; UCC: 2.2%, OR, 5.76 (95% CI 1.64 to 20.23), p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our study hypothesis, the rate of MAEs was higher in GFCs than in UCCs. Delirium was revealed as a main contributor. Most likely, this was based on improved detection rather than a truly elevated incidence, which we interpret as positive effect of geriatric comanagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02297581.