Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Bone Health and Outcomes in the United States

Osteoporosis is a bone disease classified by deterioration of bone microarchitecture and decreased bone strength, thereby increasing subsequent risk of fracture. In the United States, approximately 54 million adults aged 50 years and older have osteoporosis or are at risk due to low bone mass. Osteoporosis has long been viewed as a chronic health condition affecting primarily non-Hispanic white (NHW) women; however, emerging evidence indicates racial and ethnic disparities in bone outcomes and osteoporosis management. The primary objective of this review is to describe disparities in bone mineral density (BMD), prevalence of osteoporosis and fracture, as well as in screening and treatment of osteoporosis among non-Hispanic black (NHB), Hispanic, and Asian adults compared with NHW adults living on the US mainland. The following areas were reviewed: BMD, osteoporosis prevalence, fracture prevalence and incidence, postfracture outcomes, DXA screening, and osteoporosis treatments. Although there are limited studies on bone and fracture outcomes within Asian and Hispanic populations, findings suggest that there are differences in bone outcomes across NHW, NHB, Asian, and Hispanic populations. Further, NHB, Asian, and Hispanic populations may experience suboptimal osteoporosis management and postfracture care, although additional population-based studies are needed. There is also evidence that variation in BMD and osteoporosis exists within major racial and ethnic groups, highlighting the need for research in individual groups by origin or background. Although there is a clear need to prioritize future quantitative and qualitative research in these populations, initial strategies for addressing bone health disparities are discussed. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Age at First Osteoporosis Screening Among Older Women and Men: Is Bone Mineral Density Measurement Ordered Timely?

BACKGROUND

US National Osteoporosis Foundation has specified age cut-offs for osteoporosis screening in older women and men.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigated whether Turkish seniors undergo their first ever osteoporosis screening early, on time or late.

METHODS

We determined the age of older women and men at their first-time Bone Mass Densitometry (BMD) testing using the medical records of a geriatric outpatient unit. The timing of the BMD test was considered ''late'' when performed after the age of 65 and 70 in women and men, respectively. An "early" screening was defined as having a BMD measurement before these age cut-offs.

RESULTS

We included 481 individuals in the study (mean age: 74.5±6.5 years, women: 62%). On admission, around 18% of the sample could give no definite information and another 35% had never been assessed for osteoporosis. Among those with a past screening, 64.8% reported comorbid osteoporosis and 33% reported no osteoporosis. Mean age of the first-time BMD measurement was 67.4±7.7 years. The first-time BMD measurement was on time in 9.7%, early in 37.4% and late in 52.9% of the subjects. Half of the individuals with a self-reported osteoporosis diagnosis were non-osteoporotic on a new BMD ordered following the geriatric assessment. Multimorbidity (≥3), parental hip fracture, and smoking were the independent predictors of being early screened.

CONCLUSION

We found two-thirds of women and men unscreened for osteoporosis despite being indicated by age. Early and late screening were both prevalent. Self-reported osteoporosis diagnosis was mostly inconsistent with BMD testing in our sample.

The Sensitivity of Orthopaedic Surgeons to the Secondary Prevention of Fragility Fractures

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic surgeons must play an important role in the secondary prevention of fragility fractures; however, some surgeons are more aware than others of their responsibility regarding fracture prevention. The purpose of the present study was to identify which factors can lead to a higher sensitivity for fracture prevention.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was distributed to orthopaedic surgeons via online invitation or at academic conferences in China from July through October 2015. A total of 452 surgeons responded. As the primary outcome measure, we created a sensitivity scoring system for fracture prevention based on the respondents' answers to 5 questions regarding behavior in the following areas: risk-factor evaluation, pharmacologic therapy, nonpharmacologic therapy, patient education, and follow-up. Multivariable linear regression and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors related to surgeon sensitivity to fracture prevention.

RESULTS

Very few surgeons reported having received adequate training regarding fracture prevention or reading guidelines or other fracture prevention literature (22% and 30%, respectively). Most respondents initiated pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic therapy (82% and 75%, respectively) for the treatment of confirmed osteoporosis among patients with fragility fractures, but only half performed a risk-factor evaluation, patient education, or timely patient follow-up (51%, 52%, and 48%, respectively). In the multivariable linear regression model, the orthopaedic surgeon's age (β = 0.09, p = 0.003), self-rated knowledge level regarding osteoporosis or related issues (β = 0.16, p < 0.001), self-perceived effectiveness in using preventive measures for patients with a fragility fracture (β = 0.62, p < 0.001), and use of clinical pathways for fragility fractures in his or her workplace (β = 1.24, p < 0.001) were independently associated with sensitivity scores for fracture prevention. Similar results were obtained from a multivariable logistic regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

In China, the sensitivity of orthopaedic surgeons to the secondary prevention of fragility fractures is relatively low. Implementation of a comprehensive prevention approach and targeted continuing medical education are required to encourage surgeons to take greater responsibility for screening, treating, educating, and following their patients with fragility fractures.

Metasynthesis of Patient Attitudes Toward Bone Densitometry

BACKGROUND

Bone densitometry (e.g., dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or "DXA") is strongly associated with osteoporosis treatment; however, rates of DXA are low. While studies have demonstrated a continued need for primary care provider education on the role of DXA in preventive care, little is known about the role of patient attitudes toward DXA. This review's purpose is to synthesize the evidence about the effects of patient perceptions and experiences of DXA on osteoporosis prevention.

METHODS

A metasynthesis was conducted of English language, peer-reviewed publications, searching relevant databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts. Identified articles' quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist, and an iterative process of data evaluation, integration, and synthesis was used to develop the findings.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles from ten studies were identified, composing an aggregated sample of 265 people (231 women). Participant attitudes toward screening ranged from receptive to ambivalent to concerned about results. Participants' understandings of DXA and its role in clinical care were limited. Knowledge of osteoporosis was also partial and influenced by lay sources, the media, and health care providers. Primary care providers strongly influenced participant behavior, especially if participants had a more passive approach to health care. Participants reported less concern about expected barriers of health care access and cost.

CONCLUSION

Minimal knowledge exists of patient perceptions and experiences of DXA among those who are fracture naïve: Prior research has focused primarily on secondary fracture prevention contexts. Our metasynthesis reveals patients' significant reliance, given their limited risk appraisal and knowledge, upon primary care providers in decision-making. We urge colleagues to conduct qualitative research on DXA barriers among general primary care population in order to facilitate health care delivery systems better equipped to diagnose and treat patients before their first fracture.

How Good is Our Best Guess? Clinical Application of the WHO FRAX Tool in Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Determination and Treatment Decisions

Historically, treatment decisions for osteoporosis were based on bone mineral density. However, many fractures occur in patients with T-scores outside the osteoporotic range, emphasizing the importance of multi-factorial risk assessments. The World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) predicts 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. We hypothesized that physicians' clinical estimates of osteoporotic fracture risk would differ significantly from that calculated by FRAX. Thus, treatment decisions would differ depending whether or not physicians used FRAX. A survey consisting of five clinical scenarios was administered to 76 endocrinologists, family physicians, internists, and internal medicine residents. They were asked to estimate the osteoporotic fracture risk and decide whether they would offer preventative treatment. Their estimates were compared to the risk predicted by FRAX and national treatment threshold guidelines. The primary outcome was the difference between the participant's estimate and the FRAX-based estimate of the 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture for each scenario. In each scenario, physicians statistically significantly over-estimated fracture risk compared to that predicted by FRAX. Estimates for hip fracture risk were 2-4 times higher than FRAX estimates. The major osteoporotic fracture risk at which participants would offer treatment varied with physician group, with endocrinologists, family physicians, and residents requiring a 10-20 % 10-year risk, while internal medicine physician thresholds ranged from 2 to 20 %. Physicians greatly over-estimated the risk of hip fracture based on clinical information. FRAX is necessary to accurately quantify risk, but because physicians varied in the level of risk required before they would offer treatment, uniform approaches to risk estimation may still not result in uniform clinical treatment decisions.

Suboptimal vitamin D screening in older patients with compromised skeletal health

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Increasing number of primary care visits for osteoporosis by older patients combined with new vitamin D screening recommendations necessitate primary care providers (PCPs) to identify and screen at-risk patients. We described prevalence and determinants of vitamin D screening among older patients treated for osteopoenia, osteoporosis and related fractures in academic outpatient primary care clinics (family medicine and geriatric medicine) in Houston, TX.

METHODS

Electronic chart review collected data on patients ≥50 years old from January 2008 to December 2010. Orders for serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D indicated vitamin D screening. Differences in patient characteristics were described between the groups with and without vitamin D screening. Age, body mass index, racial/ethnic background, bone-promoting medication (BPM) use and clinic types (family medicine versus geriatric medicine) were determinants for vitamin D screening in the regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients were mostly women (95%), Caucasian (65%) and had a mean age of 69 ± 12 years. Twenty-two per cent of the family medicine clinic patients (total n = 78) and 51% of the geriatric medicine clinics patients (total n = 70) were screened. Older age (odds ratio, 0.94 confidence interval = 0.90-0.99) and BPM use (2.58, 1.03 to 6.45) were significant positive determinants for vitamin D screening.

CONCLUSIONS

In primary care clinics, vitamin D screening remains low among patients diagnosed with osteopoenia, osteoporosis and fractures. In light of new guidelines, suboptimal screening in the vulnerable older patients is disturbing. We recommend increased PCPs' awareness about vitamin D screening guidelines for improving skeletal health in older patients.

FRAX provides robust fracture prediction regardless of socioeconomic status

We investigated the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) Canada calibration and discrimination according to income quintile in 51,327 Canadian women, with and without a competing mortality framework. Our data show that, under a competing mortality framework, FRAX provides robust fracture prediction and calibration regardless of socioeconomic status (SES).

INTRODUCTION

FRAX® predicts 10-year fracture risk. Social factors may independently affect fracture risk. We investigated FRAX calibration and discrimination according to SES.

METHODS

Women aged ≥50 years with baseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) were identified from the Manitoba Bone Density Program, Canada (n = 51,327), 1996-2011. Mean household income, extracted from 2006 census files, was categorized into quintiles. Ten-year fracture probabilities were calculated using FRAX Canada. Incident non-traumatic fractures were studied in relation to income quintile in adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. We compared observed versus predicted fractures with and without a competing mortality framework.

RESULTS

During mean 6.2 ± 3.7 years of follow up, there were 6,392 deaths, 3,723 women with ≥1 major osteoporotic fracture (MOF), and 1,027 with hip fractures. Lower income was associated with higher risk for death, MOF, and hip fracture in adjusted models (all p < 0.005). More women in income quintile 1 (lowest) versus quintile 5 experienced death (19 vs. 8%), MOF (10 vs. 6%), or hip fracture (3.0 vs. 1.3 %) (all p ≤ 0.001). Adjustment for competing mortality mitigated the effect of SES on FRAX calibration, and good calibration was observed. FRAX provided good fracture discrimination for MOF and hip fracture within each income quintile (all p < 0.001). Area under the curve was slightly lower for income quintiles 1 versus 5 for FRAX with BMD to predict MOF (0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.70 vs. 0.71, 95% CI 0.69-0.74) and hip fracture (0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.81 vs. 0.87, 95% CI 0.84-0.89).

CONCLUSION

Increased fracture risk in individuals of lower income is offset by increased mortality. Under a competing mortality framework, FRAX provides robust fracture prediction and calibration regardless of SES.

Changing trends in osteoporosis care from specialty to primary care physicians

BACKGROUND

Inadequate treatment by non-specialty primary care physicians (PCPs) has been a concern in improving osteoporosis care. An increase in outpatient visits by older patients seeking osteoporosis care has been reported. But what percentages of these visits are made to PCPs are unknown. We investigated recent trends of outpatient visits and treatment for osteoporosis in older adults (>50 years) by physician type (PCPs vs. specialty care non-PCPs).

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis used National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) data from 2002 to 2008 in the USA. Patients ≥50 years with osteoporosis were included. Descriptive and logistic analysis reported trends of visits and treatment for osteoporosis care by physician type.

RESULTS

About 9 million weighted visits were reported between 2002 and 2008. An increase in osteoporosis-related visits was noted from 5% in 2002 to 20% in 2008. The majority of patients in these visits were women (89%), between 65 and 84 years of age (56%), of non-Hispanic (88%) and White (81%) ethnic/racial backgrounds and had Medicare (51%) as the source of payment. Almost half (49.5%) of the visits were made to the PCPs. About 74% visits recorded a prescription for osteoporosis treatment. Calcium supplementation was low in the study population, and the lack of data on vitamin D supplements prevented us commenting on the supplementary aspect of osteoporosis management. Non-PCPs were more likely to have prescribed bisphosphonates (p<0.05) during an osteoporosis-related visit compared to PCPs (odds ratio:1.81, 95% CI: 1.12-2.92).

CONCLUSIONS

We report a change with increasing trend of outpatient visits to PCPs for osteoporosis care since the 1990s. Despite a lower percentage of prescriptions by PCPs than non-PCPs, there is an increasing trend of prescribing osteoporosis treatment by PCPs. Growing demand for managing the chronic bone disease mandates a need for assessment of educational interventions to better prepare PCPs for improving skeletal health of the elderly.

The importance of physicians' risk perception in osteoporosis treatment decision making

Recent physicians' guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis emphasize the use of fracture-risk scores. To determine whether adherence to the guidelines has potential to improve targeting of care, we examined survey results from a random sample of US primary care physicians prior to the new guidelines. Survey measures included physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers to care. Physicians' estimates of 5-yr and lifetime absolute hip fracture risks and their treatment decisions were examined for patient vignettes depicting postmenopausal women of varying ages, weights, and bone mineral density (BMD) results. The 360 US physician respondents were accurate in their estimates of lifetime fracture risk for all 4 vignettes, but overestimated 5-yr hip fracture risk by a factor of 10 or more; 36-45% of the physicians recommended treatment for patients whose history and BMD placed them below guideline-recommended treatment thresholds, and 5-yr risk estimates were strongly associated with prescription treatment decisions for 2 of 3 such vignettes (both p<0.01). Other potential barriers to care include medication costs and adverse effects. Our findings suggest efforts to improve targeting of osteoporosis care are appropriately addressing physicians' risk estimation. Evidence from other conditions suggests these efforts must be intensive and available at the point of care.

Adherence to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2002 osteoporosis screening guidelines in academic primary care settings

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is very common in older women in the United States. Osteoporotic fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality, as well as high healthcare costs. Since 2002, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening for osteoporosis of all women aged ≥65. Our objective was to determine adherence to osteoporosis screening guidelines by primary care internists in a large academic medical center and to assess if adherence varies based on provider gender or practice location.

METHODS

This was a retrospective electronic medical record (EMR) review. All women aged ≥65 who were seen in the General Internal Medicine Center (GIMC) or the Women's Health Care Center (WHCC) at the University of Washington Medical Center by internal medicine attending physicians between January 1, 2006, and February 2, 2008, were included in the study. We determined if the patient had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) study in the EMR database. We calculated the percentage of patients screened per provider and also compared the rate of screening for male vs. female providers and for GIMC vs. WHCC providers.

RESULTS

Of the 1363 women included in the study, 70% had documentation of a DEXA study. Adherence to screening recommendations for individual providers varied from 33% to 100%. Screening was more likely to occur in the WHCC than in the GIMC (79.2% vs. 66.7%, p<0.001). Although women providers were more likely to screen than their male counterparts (72.2% vs. 66.1%, p=0.023), this relationship did not hold true after excluding women providers from the WHCC.

CONCLUSIONS

We found good adherence to the USPSTF 2002 guidelines for osteoporosis screening in women aged ≥65 years by primary care physicians in a large urban academic medical center. The practice site and not gender of the provider resulted in significantly different screening rates.

Impact of guideline implementation by a fracture nurse on subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures

INTRODUCTION

Systematic implementation of guidelines in patients presenting with a fracture increases identification of patients at high risk for subsequent fractures and contributes to a decreased fracture risk. Its effect on prevention of subsequent fractures and on mortality has not been documented. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the implementation of specific guidelines on the risk of subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture (NVF).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Before-after impact analysis in consecutive patients older than 50 years who were admitted to the hospital with a NVF during 2 periods: pre-intervention group (n = 1,920, enrolled in 1999-2001) and intervention group (n = 1,335, enrolled in 2004-2006). The intervention consisted of a dedicated fracture nurse who systematically offered fracture risk evaluation and treatment according to available guidelines. The 2-year absolute risk (AR) and hazard ratio's (HR, with 95% confidence interval (CI)) of subsequent NVFs and mortality were analysed between both groups after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location by multivariable Cox regression and by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

The AR of subsequent fracture was 9.9% before and 6.7% after intervention, indicating a decrease of 35% in the risk of subsequent fracture (HR 0.65; CI: 0.51-0.84, after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location) and 17.9% and 11.6%, respectively, for subsequent mortality, indicating a decrease of 33% in the risk of subsequent mortality (HR: 0.67; CI: 0.55-0.81, after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic implementation of guidelines for fracture prevention by a dedicated fracture nurse immediately after a NVF is associated with a significant reduction of the 2-year risk of subsequent NVF and mortality.

Importance of bone mineral density measurements in evaluating fragility bone fracture risk in Asian Indian men

We evaluated the effect of BMD on fracture risk prediction using FRAX® among Asian Indian men when used in conjunction with clinical risk factors. A majority of our subjects were either osteopenic or osteoporotic, and their fracture risk increased when FRAX® was used in conjunction with femur neck T-scores.

INTRODUCTION

Asian Indian men living in the United States may represent a population that is at high and underappreciated risk for fragility bone fractures.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of BMD on fracture risk prediction using FRAX® among Asian Indian men when used in conjunction with clinical risk factors.

METHODS

Forty four Asian Indian men (mean age 64.9 (±8.4) years) who had lived in the United States for an average of 33.6 (±10.6) years underwent BMD measurement at the proximal femur. Subjects were subjected to a general physical exam and history of fracture, hip fracture in a parent, current smoking and alcohol use, and diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis was obtained. Data from each subject were entered into the FRAX® algorithm and 10-year fracture probabilities were calculated using clinical risk factors (CRFs) alone and in combination with femur neck T-scores.

RESULTS

Thirteen subjects (29.5%) had femur neck T-scores ≥ -1.0, 28 (63.6%) T-scores between -1.0 and -2.5, and three (6.8%) T-scores < -2.5. The 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture based on a combination of clinical risk factors and femur neck T-scores was significantly higher than the fracture probability based on clinical risk factors alone (t(43) = 2.58, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Asian Indian men, the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture increases when femur neck T-scores are added to clinical risk factors in the FRAX® algorithm, and this population have a high fracture probability even in the absence of clinical risk factors.

Osteoporosis risk assessment and management in primary care: focus on quantity and quality

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Early identification of high-risk patients by general practitioners (GPs) plays the key role in the management of osteoporosis (OP).

METHODS

We conducted a postal questionnaire survey among 1500 Czech GPs to examine their behaviour related to OP.

RESULTS

The overall questionnaire return rate was 38%. The respondents (mean age 52 years; 61.5% women) did not differ from non-respondents. OP knowledge correlated negatively with age (P<0.001). The most common reason for both suspicion of OP and referral for suspected OP is the patient's complaints. When the initial skeletal examination for suspected OP is conducted on the GP's initiative, it is most often X-ray (76%) followed by osteodensitometry (61%). The respondents address five patients (median) per month about this issue. The number of referrals to a specialist for suspected OP during the last quarter was 5 (median). The most commonly reported barriers to OP management were financial limits set by the health insurance agency (71%) and lack of authorization to prescribe selected drugs (71%).

CONCLUSIONS

The GPs should pay greater attention to risk factors and be more active in the detection of at-risk patients. It is necessary to motivate the GPs and to overcome the barriers to effective clinical practice.

Survey of osteoporosis in an inpatient geriatric psychiatric setting: a pilot study

Osteoporosis is a major public health issue. We examined geriatric psychiatric inpatients' awareness of having osteopenia and/or osteoporosis. The much lower proportion of our patients reporting a history of osteoporosis suggests that it might be under-diagnosed in this psychiatric population. A high proportion of our sample were treated with psychotropics that may decrease bone mineral density, however, most were not receiving any treatment for osteoporosis and fewer than expected were aware of a history of osteoporosis. Education of patients about this silent disease should be a priority for psychiatric nurses and the treatment team in an inpatient psychiatric setting.

Quality health care gaps in osteoporosis: how can patients, providers, and the health system do a better job?

A significant gap exists between evidence-based advances and real-world clinical practice in the diagnosis and prevention of osteoporosis. The goal of osteoporosis care is to prevent fractures and improve health-related quality of life, and ideally lower mortality. Despite recent advances in osteoporosis detection and treatment options, studies suggest underdiagnosis and undertreatment of osteoporosis, even among those who have already sustained fractures. The challenges in translating knowledge into practice are multifaceted, with efforts directed at the patient, provider, and health care system levels achieving variable success at the population level. Methods to improve quality of care in osteoporosis need to be multipronged, with emphasis on clinical process improvement and reliance on interdisciplinary teams. We review the growing literature on quality of care for osteoporosis.

Impact of systematic implementation of a clinical case finding strategy on diagnosis and therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

Case finding for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women is advocated in guidelines of osteoporosis, but implementation is unsatisfactory. We studied, in daily practice, the impact of systematic implementation of a previously validated clinical decision rule and fracture history on referral for bone densitometry (DXA) and drug prescription for osteoporosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Before-after impact analysis in 41,478 consecutive consulting postmenopausal women, included by 1080 general practitioners (GPs) during 2 mo, using the osteoporosis self-assessment (OST) index (based on age and weight, indicating women at low [LR], moderate [MR], and high risk [HR] for having osteoporosis [T-score < -2.5 in spine and/or hip]) and fracture history. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated between referrals before (n = 6580) and after intervention (n = 10,379) and between risk subgroups.

RESULTS

Post-intervention RR for referral for DXA was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.8-2.0). Compared with LR women with prior DXA, the RR was 6.3 (95% CI, 6.0-6.6) in MR and 10.7 (95% CI, 10.0-11.4) in HR women without fracture, but similar in MR and HR women with fracture (11.4 and 11.6, respectively). New cases of osteoporosis were diagnosed in 3811 women, 96% of whom were prescribed drug treatment. Of HR women, 79% were referred for DXA. The sensitivity of a low OST index to predict osteoporosis was 92% and specificity was 16%.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of temporary systematic implementation of this case finding strategy on GP practice was high: it nearly tripled referrals for DXA, and 96% of patients found to have osteoporosis had treatment. The impact depended on OST index and fracture history. Only 79% of HR women were referred for DXA. Specificity of a low OST index to predict osteoporosis was low. This indicates the need in the GP population for case finding strategies with fewer barriers for referral for DXA and with higher accuracy for predicting osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis practice patterns in 2006 among primary care physicians participating in the NORA study

This study investigated osteoporosis management trends from 1998 to 2006 among 808 primary care physicians involved in the US-based NORA (National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment) study. These results suggest some significant improvements in osteoporosis management over the past eight years.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate osteoporosis management trends among a large cohort of primary care physicians (PCPs) involved in the US-based NORA (National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment) study.

METHODS

In 2006, we undertook a resurvey of the 2,836 NORA PCPs who completed a baseline survey in 1998. Of the 2,199 PCPs for whom we had current contact information and who were still practicing, we collected usable surveys from 808 (37% response rate).

RESULTS

From 1998 to 2006, more than double the percentage of NORA PCPs reported using BMDs "often" (35% vs. 87%). There was a doubling of the percentage of NORA PCPs who reported that a T-score of < or = -2.5 was the threshold indicating the presence of osteoporosis (34% vs. 67%). The percentage of NORA PCPs who reported using bone turnover markers to screen, diagnosis, or monitor osteoporosis almost tripled (19% vs. 55%). The percentage of patients prescribed or recommended hormone therapy dropped sixfold (67% to 11%), and the percentage of patients prescribed bisphosphonates increased fourfold from 15% to 59%.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest some significant improvements in osteoporosis management over the past eight years.

Osteoporosis management in prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy

BACKGROUND

The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer has increased substantially in recent years, exposing more men to potential treatment complications, including osteoporosis and fractures.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether men treated with ADT for prostate cancer received osteoporosis screening, prevention, or treatment.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study using a retrospective review of electronic medical records.

SUBJECTS

One hundred seventy-four patients with prostate cancer on ADT or status-post orchiectomy enrolled in primary care at the New Mexico Veterans Affairs Health Care System as of July 2005.

MEASUREMENTS

Patient demographics, tumor characteristics (Gleason score, stage, last PSA value, documented bone metastases), history of hip or vertebral fracture, osteoporosis risk factors (number of ADT shots, diabetes, smoking, heavy alcohol use or prescriptions for corticosteroids, thyroid hormone or dilantin). We defined recommended management as performing DXA scans or prescribing bisphosphonates, calcitonin, calcium or vitamin D.

RESULTS

Just 60 of 174 (34%) patients received recommended osteoporosis management based on DXA scans (13%) or treatment with oral or IV bisphosphonates (21%), calcitonin (1%), calcium (16%) or vitamin D (10%). On multivariate analysis, bone metastases, higher last PSA, and younger age at diagnosis were associated with recommended management, whereas Hispanic race/ethnicity was inversely associated.

CONCLUSIONS

Most men treated with ADT for prostate cancer did not receive osteoporosis screening, prevention or treatment. Evidence for advanced cancer though not risk factors for osteoporosis or fracture-was associated with receiving osteoporosis management. Further research is needed to identify optimal strategies for screening, prevention, and treatment in this population.

Improving care of patients at-risk for osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite accurate diagnostic tests and effective therapies, the management of osteoporosis has been observed to be suboptimal in many settings. We tested the effectiveness of an intervention to improve care in patients at-risk of osteoporosis.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care physicians and their patients at-risk of osteoporosis, including women 65 years and over, men and women 45 and over with a prior fracture, and men and women 45 and over who recently used > or =90 days of oral glucocorticoids.

INTERVENTION

A multifaceted program of education and reminders delivered to primary care physicians as well as mailings and automated telephone calls to patients.

OUTCOME

Either undergoing a bone mineral density (BMD) testing or filling a prescription for a bone-active medication during the 10 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

After the intervention, 144 (14%) patients in the intervention group and 97 (10%) patients in the control group received either a BMD test or filled a prescription for an osteoporosis medication. This represents a 4% absolute increase and a 45% relative increase (95% confidence interval 9-93%, p = 0.01) in osteoporosis management between the intervention and control groups. No differences between groups were observed in the incidence of fracture.

CONCLUSION

An intervention targeting primary care physicians and their at-risk patients increased the frequency of BMD testing and/or filling prescriptions for osteoporosis medications. However, the absolute percentage of at-risk patients receiving osteoporosis management remained low.

Adherence of academic geriatric practitioners to osteoporosis screening guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To examine the bone mineral density (BMD) testing habits of geriatricians and geriatric fellows at the University of Connecticut fellowship training program to evaluate their adherence screening guidelines.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

University based academic geriatric practice in Farmington, CT.

PARTICIPANTS

Chart review of two hundred female patients over age 65 under care of seven faculty geriatricians and eight geriatric fellows in training.

MEASUREMENTS

Data collected included BMD testing status, patient's osteoporosis risk factors and functional status.

RESULTS

Physicians ordered BMD tests in 151 (76%) patients; 128 (64%) had a bone mineral density test within three years. A personal history of fracture was the only osteoporosis risk factor that correlated to higher rates of osteoporosis testing. Physicians were more likely to order BMD screening in younger patients (92% in 65-74 vs. 74% in ages 85+, P=.031), patients independent in activities of daily living (72% vs. 32, P=.002), and patients without dementia (70% vs.37%, p=.007). BMD testing results found 82% with osteopenia or osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

A geriatric group that is highly attuned to bone health demonstrated more optimal adherence to OP testing guidelines for all "at-risk" older women and better than reported previously. Functional status more strongly predicted BMD testing than osteoporosis risk factors. This study suggests that with improved physician education and familiarity with the disease, high rates of BMD testing for earlier identification of geriatric patients at risk for osteoporosis are achievable.

Validation of OSTA among Filipinos

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease in humans. It is a special concern not only among postmenopausal women, but men as well. In developing countries where there are meager resources, it will definitely be helpful to search for ways to identify patients with low bone mineral density who have a high risk of future fractures. These people need to be identified for treatment consideration in order to reduce the incidence of the disease and its complications. A simple risk index called the Osteoporosis Screening Tool for Asians (OSTA), based only on two variables, age and body weight, performed well in identifying the risk of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women. This index has been validated in Japan, Korea and other Caucasian populations as a useful tool in identifying individuals who will require BMD measurement. This is the first study that validated the said index in 1,597 Filipino women and men referred to a tertiary center for BMD measurement. It had sensitivity of 97 and 90% and specificity of 59 and 66% with areas under the curve of 0.8506 and 0.8475, respectively, for women and men. We conclude that OSTA performed just as well or even better than other indices used in other populations to identify individuals who are at varying degrees of risk for osteoporosis. The tool also proves to be a useful and practical guide to help clinicians to be more prudent and judicious in employing bone mineral density measurement.

Medication use patterns for osteoporosis: an assessment of guidelines, treatment rates, and quality improvement interventions

OBJECTIVE

To assess current osteoporosis treatment guidelines, studies of osteoporosis treatment, and interventions to improve osteoporosis treatment.

METHODS

We searched the medical literature for articles published between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2003, and assessed all relevant articles using a structured data abstraction process. Because of substantial heterogeneity in study design, no attempt was made to summarize the data using meta-analytic techniques.

RESULTS

Seventy-six articles met criteria for inclusion. Eighteen practice guidelines were studied. Most guidelines were consistent in key treatment recommendations. Among 18 studies of treatment rates in patients who had fractures, the weighted average varied from 22% for nonhormonal treatment to 19% for calcium. We found slightly higher treatment rates for patients taking oral glucocorticoids or for those older than 65 years. There were no consistent correlates of which patients received treatment. Six studies that examined treatment frequencies after bone densitometry all found that patients with lower bone mineral density were more likely to receive treatment. Most of the 8 interventions designed to improve osteoporosis treatment showed improvement in treatment rates; however, only 3 were randomized, and these showed the smallest effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequency of treatment of osteoporosis in at-risk populations is low. However, our assessment of the literature revealed no clear and consistent predictors of undertreatment. Few carefully controlled interventions have been reported.

Adherence with osteoporosis practice guidelines: a multilevel analysis of patient, physician, and practice setting characteristics

PURPOSE

The diagnosis and treatment of patients at risk of fragility fractures is uncommon. We examined the patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with adherence to local osteoporosis guidelines.

METHODS

Data were obtained from electronic medical records from one academic medical center. Local guidelines suggest screening and consideration of treatment for at-risk patients, including women aged > or =65 years, women aged 50 to 64 years who smoke cigarettes, persons who used more than 5 mg of oral prednisone for >3 months, and those with a history of a fracture after age 45 years. Clinical notes, medication lists, and radiology records were reviewed to determine whether patients had undergone bone mineral density testing or received any medications for osteoporosis. Possible correlates of guideline adherence, including patient, physician, and practice site characteristics, were assessed in mixed multivariable models.

RESULTS

We identified 6311 at-risk patients seen by 160 doctors at 10 primary care sites during 2001 to 2002. Of these patients, 45% (n = 2820) had a prior bone mineral density test and 30% (n = 1922) had received a medication for osteoporosis; 54% (n = 3401) had one or the other. After adjusting for patient case mix, 17% to 71% of patients had been managed according to local guidelines and had undergone at least bone mineral density testing or received a medication. Patient variables that significantly lowered the probability of guideline adherence included age >74 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.55), age <55 years (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.42), male sex (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.23), black race (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.47), and having more than one comorbid condition (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.89). Patients seen by male physicians were less likely to have care that was adherent with guidelines (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.89).

CONCLUSION

Rates of adherence with local osteoporosis guidelines for patients at risk of fragility fractures vary by patient, physician, and practice site characteristic.