4.6 Article

Burden of Illness for Osteoporotic Fractures Compared With Other Serious Diseases Among Postmenopausal Women in the United States

期刊

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
卷 90, 期 1, 页码 53-62

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.09.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Amgen, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To provide a national estimate of the incidence of hospitalizations due to osteoporotic fractures (OFs) in women; compare this with the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and breast cancer; and assess temporal trends in the incidence and length of hospitalizations. Patients and Methods: The study included all women 55 years and older at the time of admission, admitted to a hospital participating in the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample for an outcome of interest. We performed a retrospective analysis of hospitalizations for OFs (hip, forearm, spine, pelvis, distal femur, wrist, and humerus), MI, stroke, or breast cancer, using the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2000-2011. Results: From 2000 to 2011, there were 4.9 million hospitalizations for OF, 2.9 million for MI, 3.0 million for stroke, and 0.7 million for breast cancer. Osteoporotic fractures accounted for more than 40% of the hospitalizations in these 4 outcomes, with an age-adjusted rate of 1124 admissions per 100,000 person-years. In comparison, MI, stroke, and breast cancer had age-adjusted incidence rates of 668, 687, and 151 admissions per 100,000 person-years, respectively. The annual total population facility-related hospital cost was highest for hospitalizations due to OFs ($5.1 billion), followed by MI ($4.3 billion), stroke ($3.0 billion), and breast cancer ($0.5 billion). Conclusion: These data provide evidence that in US women 55 years and older, the hospitalization burden of OFs and population facility-related hospital cost is greater than that of MI, stroke, or breast cancer. Prioritization of bone health and supporting programs such as fracture liaison services is needed to reduce this substantial burden.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据