Impact of the implementation of a Fracture Liaison Service on pharmaceutical expenses for osteoporosis compared to an area without an FLS

References

• Sale JE, Beaton D, Posen J, et al. Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2067–2082. ** The review that demonstrates that Fracture Liaison Service model is the best for secondary prevention of fracture.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, et al. Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:393–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huntjens KM, Van Geel TA, van den Bergh JP, et al. Fracture liaison service: impact on subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidence and mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:e29.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McLellan AR, Wolowacz SE, Zimovetz EA, et al. Fracture liaison services for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture: a cost-effectiveness evaluation based on data collected over 8 years of service provision. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2083–2098. ** The first study on cost-efectiveness of a Fracture Liaison Service.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sander B, Elliot-Gibson V, Beaton DE, et al. A coordinator program in post-fracture osteoporosis management improves outcomes and saves costs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1197–1205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper MS, Palmer AJ, Seibel MJ. Cost-effectiveness of the Concord Minimal Trauma Fracture Liaison service, a prospective, controlled fracture prevention study. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:97–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon DH, Patrick AR, Schousboe J, et al. The potential economic benefits of improved post-fracture care: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a fracture liaison service in the US health care system. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29:1667–1674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yates CJ, Chauchard MA, Liew D, et al. Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service. J Clin Densitom. 2015;18:150–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moriwaki K, Noto S. Economic evaluation of osteoporosis liaison service for secondary fracture prevention in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with previous hip fracture in Japan. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:621–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong JH, Masucci L, Hoch JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service–a real-world evaluation after 6 years of servisse provision. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:231–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal J, Gray AM, Hawley S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of orthogeriatric and fracture liaison service models of care for hip fracture patients: a population-based study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32:203–211. ** Cost -efectiveness of the Fracture Liaison Service compared to orthogeriatric service.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briot K. Fracture liaison services. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2017;29:416–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naranjo A, Ojeda-Bruno S, Bilbao-Cantarero A, et al. Two-year adherence to treatment and associated factors in a fracture liaison service in Spain. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:2579–2585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naranjo A, Ojeda-Bruno S, Bilbao-Cantarero A, et al. Results of a model of secondary prevention for osteoporotic fracture coordinated by rheumatology and focused on the nurse and primary care physicians. Reumatol Clin. 2014;10:299–303.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Puig-Junoy J, Rodríguez-Feijoó S, López-Valcárcel B. Paying for formerly free medicines in Spain after 1 year of co-payment: changes in the number of dispensed prescriptions. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12:279–287.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Linden A, Arbor A. Conducting interrupted time-series analysis for single- and multiple-group comparisons. Stata J. 2015;15:480–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, et al. Manitoba bone density program. independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:2350–2358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klop C, Welsing PMJ, Leufkens HGM, et al. The epidemiology of hip and major osteoporotic fractures in a Dutch population of community-dwelling elderly: implications for the Dutch FRAX® Algorithm. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0143800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wysowski DK, Greene P. Trends in osteoporosis treatment with oral and intravenous bisphosphonates in the United States, 2002-2012. Bone. 2013;57:423–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SC, Kim DH, Mogun H, et al. Impact of the U.S. food and drug administration’s safety-related announcements on the use of bisphosphonates after hip fracture. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31:1536–1540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal J, Manetti S, Buchanan J. The impact of hospital costing methods on cost-effectiveness analysis: a case study. Pharmacoeconomics; 2018. in press. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0673-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judge A, Javaid MK, Leal J, et al. Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Puig-Junoy J, Rodríguez-Feijoó S, López-Valcárcel B, et al. Impact of the pharmaceutical copayment reform on the use of antidiabetics, antithrombotics and drugs for chronic airflow obstructions. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016;90:e40009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Gómez P, Mora T, Puig-Junoy J. Does €1 per prescription make a difference? impact of a capped low-intensity pharmaceutical co-payment. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16:407–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar