title: 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.
abstract: CONCLUSIONS
  The cost-effectiveness of Fracture Liaison Services (FLSs) for prevention of secondary fracture in osteoporosis patients in the United Kingdom (UK), and the cost associated with their widespread adoption, were evaluated. An estimated 18 fractures were prevented and £21,000 saved per 1,000 patients. Setup across the UK would cost an estimated £9.7 million.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Only 11% to 28% of patients with a fragility fracture receive osteoporosis treatment in the UK. FLSs provide an efficient means to identify patients and are endorsed by the Department of Health but have not been widely adopted. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FLSs in the UK and the cost associated with their widespread adoption.
  
  
  METHODS
  A cost-effectiveness and budget-impact model was developed, utilising detailed audit data collected by the West Glasgow FLS.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 fragility-fracture patients (740 requiring treatment), 686 received treatment in the FLS compared with 193 in usual care. Assessments and osteoporosis treatments cost an additional £83,598 and £206,544, respectively, in the FLS; 18 fractures (including 11 hip fractures) were prevented, giving an overall saving of £21,000. Setup costs for widespread adoption of FLSs across the UK were estimated at £9.7 million.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  FLSs are cost-effective for the prevention of further fractures in fragility-fracture patients. The cost of widespread adoption of FLS across the UK is small in comparison with other service provision and would be expected to result in important benefits in fractures avoided and reduced hospital bed occupancy.
authors: Gardiner Institute, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, G11 6NT, UK.
authors: A R
authors: AR
authors: McLellan
authors: S E
authors: SE
authors: Wolowacz
authors: E A
authors: EA
authors: Zimovetz
authors: S M
authors: SM
authors: Beard
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Lock
authors: L
authors: L
authors: McCrink
authors: F
authors: F
authors: Adekunle
authors: D
authors: D
authors: Roberts
references: Osteoporos Int. 2007 Mar;18(3):261-70
references: 17086470
references: Osteoporos Int. 2003 Dec;14(12):1028-34
references: 14600804
references: Prof Nurse. 2004 Jan;19(5):286-90
references: 14737805
references: Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(29):1-146
references: 12654239
references: Osteoporos Int. 2009 Jun;20(6):853-68
references: 19271098
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91
references: 9250266
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Sep;84(9):1528-33
references: 12208908
references: Arch Intern Med. 2009 Jan 12;169(1):25-31
references: 19139320
references: Health Technol Assess. 2005 Jun;9(22):1-160
references: 15929857
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jun;90(6):1197-205
references: 18519311
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Nov;90 Suppl 4:188-94
references: 18984730