Follow-up treatment for osteoporosis after fracture

Hip Fracture Patterns Among Hispanic Seniors: Risk Factors and Implications

Background Hip fractures are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the growing US geriatric population, with the majority resulting from falls. They are associated with a significant loss of independence and impose a substantial financial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The Rio Grande Valley (RGV), a medically underserved region with a predominantly Hispanic population, faces high rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and obesity, which may influence fracture patterns and outcomes. This study examines hip fractures in a predominantly Hispanic geriatric cohort, focusing on the impact of diabetes and obesity on fracture type, with the goal of informing targeted prevention and treatment strategies. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma Center along the US-Mexico border. The study included hip fracture cases caused by falls in patients aged 65 and older over a three-year period, excluding periprosthetic and pathologic fractures. Fractures were stratified as intracapsular (femoral head/neck) or extracapsular (intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric, and greater/lesser trochanter). Treatment strategies included arthroplasty, osteosynthesis, or conservative management. Outcome measures included one-year all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, and complications such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), fat embolism, pressure ulcers, and surgical site infections (SSIs). Statistical analyses assessed associations between fracture type, patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and outcomes. Results The study included 412 patients, of whom 85.2% (351) were Hispanic and 71.4% (294) were female, with a mean age of 80.6 years and a body mass index (BMI) of 25.5 kg/m2. Higher age (mean: 81.3 years, p=0.033), lower BMI (25.0 vs. 26.2, p=0.019), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 1.98, p=0.026) were associated with extracapsular fractures. Non-surgical management was associated with a significantly higher one-year mortality rate (n=6; 20.7%; p=0.004). Surgery performed more than 48 hours after arrival prolonged hospital stay (7.96 vs. 5.73 days for <24 hours, p<0.001). The overall one-year mortality rate was 5.6% (23), with older age (OR: 1.08, p=0.034), COPD (OR: 5.24, p=0.015), and cirrhosis (OR: 8.69, p=0.024) as significant predictors. Prolonged immobilization (OR: 2.68, p=0.016) and diabetes (OR: 3.89, p=0.002) increased complication rates. Conclusion  Aging, comorbidities, and Hispanic ethnicity increased extracapsular fracture risk, while a higher BMI was predictive for intracapsular fractures. The one-year mortality rate of 5.6% highlighted the Hispanic paradox, suggesting a survival advantage despite the presence of multiple comorbidities and risk factors. Ultimately, these findings emphasize the necessity of targeted intervention strategies, including fall prevention programs, bone health education, and culturally tailored healthcare approaches. Addressing ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in osteoporosis screening and fracture management remains essential for improving outcomes and reducing hip fracture occurrence within this high-risk population.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on pharmacologic treatment of patients newly diagnosed with osteoporosis

PURPOSE

This study determined whether initiation of pharmacologic treatment was delayed for newly diagnosed osteoporosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

1,189 patients ≥50 years with newly diagnosed osteoporosis using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening at a single academic institution were included. Patients with previous osteoporosis were excluded. Patients diagnosed between March 1, 2018-January 31, 2020 (pre-pandemic cohort, n = 576) were compared to those diagnosed between March 1, 2020-January 31, 2022 (pandemic cohort, n = 613). Age, sex, race, ethnicity, ordering providers (primary vs specialty), and pharmacological agents were evaluated. Primary outcomes included proportion of patients prescribed therapy within 3 and 6-months of diagnosis, and mean time from diagnosis to treatment initiation.

RESULTS

The pre-pandemic cohort had more White patients (74.3 vs 68.4%, p = .02) and no differences between remaining demographic variables. Only 40.5% of newly diagnosed patients initiated pharmacologic therapy within 6 months. Patients treated at 3-months (31.8 vs 35.4%, p = 0.19) and 6-months (37.8 vs 42.9, p = 0.08) were comparable between cohorts (47.2 vs 50.2% p = 0.30). Mean time from diagnosis to treatment initiation was similar (46 vs 45 days, p = 0.72). There were no treatment differences based on gender, race, or ethnicity or between ordering providers (65.1 vs 57.4% primary care, p = 0.08). Bisphosphonates were most often prescribed in both cohorts (89% vs 82.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study assessing COVID-19's impact on pharmacologic treatment of newly diagnosed osteoporosis. 40.5% of newly diagnosed patients were treated pharmacologically within six months of diagnosis, and the pandemic did not significantly affect treatment rates.

How to initiate and develop Fracture Liaison Services (FLS). Recommendations from the IOF Capture the Fracture® FLS Mentors in Brazil

Expected number of fragility fractures in Brazil, raising the healthcare prioritization for interventions that reduce fracture risk. An FLS is dedicated to managing patient with fragility fracture to reduce risk of another fracture. We review FLSs cost-effectiveness and describe key components to effectively set up FLS in Brazil.

PURPOSE

To create a guideline to show health professionals, hospital managers, and stakeholders in Brazil the importance of secondary fracture prevention and how to implement a Fracture Liaison Service.

METHODS

We review the cost-effectiveness for FLSs in Brazil. We describe the key components needed to set up an effective FLS including methods for identification, investigation, treatment indication, including bone drugs, supplementation, physical activity, fall prevention, and monitoring. The staffing of FLSs, value of regional clinical networks and quality improvement are also described as a guide for healthcare professionals and decision makers in Brazil.

RESULTS

An FLS is a service dedicated to identifying, assessing, recommending treatment, and monitoring patient who present with a fragility fracture reducing the risk of another fracture. FLS has been implemented in Brazil since 2012 overcoming a large geography and a complex health system. Even the limitations, restrictions, differences, and characteristics of each region, it is possible for health institutions to initiate an FLS, adapted to own available resources and meet the stages of identification, investigation, treatment, and monitoring.

CONCLUSION

The peculiarity of the Brazilian healthcare system means FLS implementation needs to be tailored to local reality. However, even with limitations, any attempt to capture patients who suffer a fracture due to bone fragility is effective and reduces the risk of further fractures.

Incidence of fractures and clinical profile of patients following up at a Fracture Liaison Service in the city of Curitiba

Background

Osteoporotic fractures are common, and their incidence are increasing worldwide. The first fracture doubles the risk of new fractures. Despite that, up to 80% of patients with a fragility fracture are evaluated or treated to reduce the risk of new fractures.

Aims

To evaluate the results of the operation of the hospital Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) and to analyze the clinical characteristics of the patients attending the service in its first 2 years of operation and to estimate the fracture risk reduction ratio.

Methods

The FLS managed patients older than 50 years who were admitted with a low-energy trauma fracture between January 2017 and April 2018. This management consists in a full medical evaluation, nutritional and physical activity guidance, and specific osteoporosis treatment, if needed.

Results

We monitored and treated 135 patients. Forty percent of them had a previous fracture and only 20.3% of them received treatment to prevent new fractures. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, the estimated incidence of new fractures over 24 months was 12.1% (95% CI 7.2–20.8%), indicating that the percentage of patients without new fractures due to bone fragility during treatment was estimated at 87.9% (95% CI 79.2–92.8%).

Conclusions

The evaluation and treatment of patients who sustained a fragility fracture to prevent a secondary fracture is effective in reducing the risk of new fractures in high-risk patients.

Osteoporosis Is Undertreated After Low-energy Vertebral Compression Fractures

INTRODUCTION

Despite guidelines recommending postfracture bone health workup, multiple studies have shown that evaluation and treatment of osteoporosis has not been consistently implemented after fragility fractures. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate rates of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in adult patients after low-energy thoracolumbar vertebral compression fractures (VCFs).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients ≥60 years old presenting to a single academic trauma center with acute thoracolumbar VCFs after a ground-level fall from 2016 to 2020 . Rates of osteoporosis screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and initiation of pharmaceutical treatment were recorded at four time points: before the date of injury, during index hospitalization, at first primary care provider follow-up, and at final primary care provider follow-up. Rates of subsequent falls and secondary fragility fractures were recorded. One-year mortality and overall mortality were also calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients with a mean age of 83 years presenting with thoracic and/or lumbar fractures after a ground-level fall were included. At a mean final follow-up of 502 days, only 10 patients (19.2%) received pharmacologic therapy for osteoporosis and only 6 (11.5%) underwent postinjury dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry evaluation. Twenty-five patients (48%) had at least one subsequent fall at a mean of 164 days from the initial date of injury. Eleven patients with subsequent falls sustained an additional fragility fracture because of the fall, including six operative injuries. One-year mortality among the 52 patients was 26.9%, and the overall mortality rate was 44.2% at the final follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Osteoporosis remains a major public health issue that markedly affects quality of life and healthcare costs. Our study demonstrates the additional need for improved osteoporosis workup and intervention among patients who have sustained VCFs. We hope that our study helps raise awareness for improved osteoporosis evaluation and treatment among spine surgeons and all medical professionals treating patients with fragility fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective Case Series, Level IV Evidence.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis Before and After Fracture: A Side-by-Side Analysis of Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Osteoporosis Patients

BACKGROUND

Although treatment for osteoporosis is recommended by U.S. clinical guidelines, a lack of diagnosis and treatment is common among patients with osteoporotic fractures.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rates of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment before and after various types of fractures.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims analysis using data from the Humana Medicare Advantage claims (Medicare group) and Optum Insight Clinformatics Data Mart commercial claims (Commercial group). Patients included in the study had a claim for a qualifying fracture occurring between January 2008 and December 2013 (the index fracture), were continuously enrolled in the health plan for ≥ 1 year before and after the index fracture, and were aged ≥ 65 years in the Medicare group or ≥ 50 years in the Commercial group at the time of the index fracture. Fragility fractures and osteoporosis diagnoses were identified from ICD-9-CM codes. Treatment for osteoporosis included oral and injectable therapies identified by National Drug Code numbers and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes. Diagnosis and treatment rates were assessed during the 1-year periods before and after the index fracture. All analyses were conducted by fracture type (vertebral, hip, nonhip/nonvertebral [NHNV], and multiple), with stratification by age and sex. No comparisons were made between the Medicare and Commercial groups; rather, McNemar tests were used to compare prefracture versus postfracture diagnosis and treatment rates within each group.

RESULTS

For inclusion in the Medicare group, 45,603 patients were identified, and 54,145 patients were identified for the Commercial group. In the prefracture period, the osteoporosis diagnosis rates ranged from 12.0% (NHNV) to 21.5% (vertebral) in the Medicare group and from 5.3% (NHNV) to 12.1% (vertebral) in the Commercial group. In the postfracture period, diagnosis rates significantly increased (P < 0.001)-and nearly doubled-for all fracture types but did not exceed 42.1% (vertebral) in the Medicare group and 27.7% (vertebral) in the Commercial group. Pre-index treatment rates were similarly low, ranging from 9.4% (hip) to 16.6% (vertebral) among Medicare patients, and 7.5% (NHNV) to 14.4% (vertebral) in Commercial patients. Osteoporosis treatment rates improved significantly in the postfracture year, ranging from 12.5% (NHNV) to 26.5% (vertebral) among Medicare patients, and 8.3% (NHNV) to 21.4% (vertebral) in Commercial patients. Larger increases in diagnosis rates and smaller increases in treatment rates were observed in stratified analyses of men and women and of different age groups, with women and older patients having higher overall rates of diagnosis and treatment before and after fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

In men and women, osteoporosis diagnosis rates were low before the index fracture and improved substantially after the fracture, yet still remained low overall (under 50%). Osteoporosis treatment rates among patients experiencing a fracture were low before the index fracture and improved only minimally afterwards.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Merck & Co. Other than through the employer relationship disclosed here, Merck & Co. did not have a role in the study design, data collection, interpretation of the data, in writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Weaver is an employee of Merck & Co. Sajjan was an employee of Merck & Co. and owned stock in the company at the time of the study. Lewiecki has received consulting and/or speaker honoraria from Merck & Co., AbbVie, AgNovos Healthcare, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Radius Health, Shire, and TheraNova, along with research grant support from Merck & Co., Amgen, and Eli Lilly and Company, and serves as a board member for the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry, and the Osteoporosis Foundation of New Mexico. Harris has received consulting honoraria from Merck & Co., Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Primus Pharmaceuticals, and Radius Health. Study concept and design were contributed by Weaver and Sajjan. Sajjan collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written and revised by Weaver, Lewiecki, and Harris.

For the first fracture to be the last

Increased longevity has made progression in the number of fractures increasingly significant. Because hip fractures give rise to high morbidity and mortality rates and have high treatment costs, their occurrence is the most important marker of effectiveness in relation to osteoporosis treatment. In countries and systems that, especially over the last decade, have been investing in the prevention of osteoporosis and its consequences, the number of hip fractures has been decreasing. What these countries have in common is secondary prevention of fractures, i.e. to avoid subsequent fractures. Given that half of the patients who present hip fractures have had a previous fracture and that the treatments available have proven to be extremely efficient for decreasing subsequent fractures, a good proportion of hip fractures are preventable. It is within this scenario that orthopedists play a leading role.

Medical specialty-related adherence to anti-osteoporotic regimens in fragility hip fracture patients

There is poor adherence in the management of osteoporotic fractures. We designed a study to investigate adherence to osteoporotic regimens among osteoporotic hip fracture patients and to analyze the risk factors associated with poor compliance. This retrospective chart-review study was carried out using a database of osteoporotic hip fracture patients at a medical center in Taiwan for the period 2001-2007. Adherence was assessed using compliance and persistence. Compliance was calculated by the medication possession ratio (MPR) and persistence by the time from treatment initiation to discontinuation. The MPR and corresponding risk factors for poor compliance (MPR < 80 %) were evaluated for year 1. The year 2 results were analyzed only for those subjects with good compliance (MPR ≥ 80 %) at the end of year 1. There were 366 osteoporotic hip fracture patients (323 women, 43 men) with a mean age of 73.9 ± 7.6 years. Of these, 53.8 % had good compliance for year 1 and 68.5 % for year 2. During 2 years of follow-up, the overall persistence ratio was 33.1 %. The risk factor associated with poor compliance in the first year was index prescription by orthopedists [odds ratio (OR) 1.69, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.59]. Subjects with hypertension (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.46-0.99) had good compliance. Index prescription by orthopedists (OR 2.44, 95 % CI 1.31-4.51) was the sole risk factor for poor compliance in year 2. In conclusion, although adherence to osteoporotic regimens was sub-optimal in hip fracture patients, the majority of patients' decreased adherence occurred within the first year. Medical specialties showed different adherences in both year 1 and year 2.

Insights from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW)

GLOW is an observational, longitudinal, practice-based cohort study of osteoporosis in 60,393 women aged ≥55 years in 10 countries on three continents. In this Review, we present insights from the first 3 years of the study. Despite cost analyses being frequently based on spine and hip fractures, we found that nonvertebral, nonhip fractures were around five times more common and doubled the use of health-care resources compared with hip and spine fractures combined. Fractures not at the four so-called major sites in FRAX(®) (upper arm, forearm, hip and clinical vertebral fractures) account for >40% of all fractures. The risk of fracture is increased by various comorbidities, such as Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis and lung and heart disease. Obesity, although thought to be protective against all fractures, substantially increased the risk of fractures in the ankle or lower leg. Simple assessment by age plus fracture history has good predictive value for all fractures, but risk profiles differ for first and subsequent fractures. Fractures diminish quality of life as much or more than diabetes mellitus, arthritis and lung disease, yet women substantially underestimate their own fracture risk. Treatment rates in patients at high risk of fracture are below those recommended but might be too frequent in women at low risk. Comorbidities and the limits of current therapeutic regimens jeopardize the efficacy of drugs; new regimens should be explored for severe cases.

Secondary prevention after an osteoporosis-related fracture: an overview

This article is an overview of the status of postfracture secondary prevention programs. The concept of fracture risk, the inclusion of fracture risk in clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis, and how fracture risk has contributed to the development of postfracture secondary prevention programs are described. The scope of postfracture secondary prevention programs, the gaps in care that persist despite these initiatives, and the potential reasons for these gaps are also described. Recommendations for future research in the area of postfracture secondary prevention are provided.

Prevention and clinical management of hip fractures in patients with dementia

Hip fractures and dementia increase exponentially with age, and patients who are afflicted by both conditions suffer significant morbidity and mortality. The aging of our population heightens the need to recognize the interaction of these conditions in order to improve our efforts to prevent hip fractures, provide acute care that improves outcomes, and provide secondary prevention and rehabilitation that returns patients to their previous level of functioning. Identification and treatment of vitamin D deficiency and osteoporosis and assessment and interventions to reduce falls in patients with dementia can significantly impact the incidence of first and subsequent hip fractures. Acute management of hip fractures that focuses on comanagement by orthopedic surgeons and geriatricians and uses protocol-driven geriatric-focused care has been shown to decrease mortality, length of hospitalization, readmission rates, and complications including delirium. Patients with mild-to-moderate dementia benefit from intensive geriatric rehabilitation to avoid nursing home placement. Recognizing the need to optimize primary and secondary prevention of hip fractures in patients with dementia and educating providers and families will lead to improved quality of life for patients affected by dementia and hip fractures.

Treatment and Management of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis within an Ambulatory Care Network

Background:

Postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite established guidelines for the care of PMO, the treatment and management of this disease remain suboptimal.

Objective:

To examine the treatment and management of PMO in a community-based ambulatory care setting.

Methods:

Women with a new diagnosis of PMO (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, code 733.01) were identified through the electronic health records (EHR) of a community-based ambulatory care network in northern California between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2008. Patients were included if they were 65 years of age or older and had EHR activity 26 months or more after diagnosis. They were excluded if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (ICD-9:733.xx) prior to the study period. A retrospective review of the EHR and medical charts was performed to identify patients who were prescribed FDA-approved pharmacotherapy, who received bone mineral density (BMD) testing via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and who experienced a fracture.

Results:

One hundred thirty-one PMO patients were identified who met study eligibility criteria. Fifty-nine patients (45%) were prescribed FDA-approved pharmacotherapy at diagnosis. Ninety patients (69%) were prescribed pharmacotherapy at any point during follow-up. Sixty-four patients (49%) had a baseline DXA scan and 95 patients (73%) had 1 or more DXA scans during follow-up. Seventeen of 90 patients (19%) who received pharmacotherapy had 2 DXA scans within 2 years of follow-up. Nineteen fractures were reported among 16 patients during the study period.

Conclusions:

The proportion of patients with PMO who received pharmacologic treatment at diagnosis and had a baseline DXA scan was relatively low; however, the majority of these patients received treatment and had 1 or more DXA scans at some point during the 26-month follow-up period. Future studies should be conducted to assess the role of early BMD testing and pharmacologic intervention in optimizing outcomes among women with PMO.

Factors influencing diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture among postmenopausal women in Asian countries: a retrospective study

Background

A vast amount of literature describes the incidence of fracture as a risk for recurrent osteoporotic fractures in western and Asian countries. Osteoporosis evaluation and treatment after a low-trauma fracture, however, has not been well characterized in postmenopausal women in Asia. The purpose of this study was to characterize patient and health system characteristics associated with the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women hospitalized with a fragility fracture in Asia.

Methods

Patient surveys and medical charts of postmenopausal women (N=1,122) discharged after a fragility hip fracture from treatment centers in mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007 were reviewed for bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, osteoporosis diagnosis, and osteoporosis treatment.

Results

The mean (SD) age was 72.9 (11.5) years. A BMD measurement was reported by 28.2% of patients, 51.5% were informed that they had osteoporosis, and 33.0% received prescription medications for osteoporosis in the 6 months after discharge. Using multivariate logistic regression analyses, prior history of fracture decreased the odds of a BMD measurement (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.88). Having a BMD measurement increased the odds of osteoporosis diagnosis (OR 10.1, 95% CI 6.36-16.0), as did having health insurance (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.51-16.21 for private insurance with partial self-payment relative to 100% self-payment). A history of fracture was not independently associated with an osteoporosis diagnosis (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56-1.15). Younger age reduced the odds of receiving medication for osteoporosis (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.96 relative to age ≥65), while having a BMD measurement increased the odds (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.23-2.61).

Conclusions

Osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment in Asian countries were driven by BMD measurement but not by fracture history. Future efforts should emphasize education of general practitioners and patients about the importance of fracture.

Managing the burden of osteoporosis: is there a standard of care?

Fragility fractures, being a consequence of low bone quality and density, are key clinically relevant markers of bone frailty diseases such as osteoporosis. Numerous barriers to adequate osteoporotic care today have been reported. These include inadequate knowledge and sensitivity to this public health problem. This is compounded by lack of communication and coordination of care. Improvement in the dialogue between orthopaedic surgeons and primary care physicians is a necessary step in the identification and treatment of patients with fragility fractures. Cross-disciplinary educational modules should be produced that include patient-friendly materials.

Algorithm for the management of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disease that weakens bones and increases the risk of fractures. It affects about one half of women over the age of 60, and one third of older men. With appropriate care, osteoporosis can be prevented; and when present, it can be easily diagnosed and managed. Unfortunately, many patients with osteoporosis are not recognized or treated, even after sustaining a low-trauma fracture. Even when treatment is initiated, patients may not take medication correctly, regularly, or for a sufficient amount of time to receive the benefit of fracture risk reduction. Efforts to improve compliance and treatment outcomes include longer dosing intervals and parenteral administration. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have been developed by the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) but may not be fully utilized by clinicians who must deal with numerous healthcare priorities. We present an algorithm to help streamline the work of busy clinicians so they can efficiently provide state-of-the-art care to patients with osteoporosis.

[Secondary prevention in osteoporotic fractures. The GIOS project]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this report is to describe and evaluate the results of a secondary prevention program in osteoporotic fractures in 70 Spanish hospitals. This project was started to improve the treatment of these fractures, with the inhospital implementation of software collecting epidemiological data on patients with osteoporotic fractures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective case study was conducted between March 2003 and March 2006 involving a consecutive sample of 24,534 patients with established fragility fracture seen in 70 hospitals. The study exclusion criterion was secondary osteoporotic fracture. The project consists of implementing software in hospitals, designed to collect such epidemiological data among these patients. Based on this information and on the published scientific evidence, the software automatically generates drug therapy recommendations and non pharmacologic measures of prevention to be included in the discharge report.

RESULTS

The number of patients with osteoporotic fractures included in the program totalled 24,534 subjects. Of these patients, only 22.7% were receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Implementation of the program made it possible to discharge 19,033 patients (77.6%) with prescribed treatment, but in only 15,153 patients (61.8%) the treatment was correct.

CONCLUSIONS

The GIOS project has proved effective in increasing the identification of fragility fractures and improve the percentage of secondary prevention measures, both pharmacological and non pharmacological, for patients with these fractures.

Cost-effectiveness of multifaceted evidence implementation programs for the prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

SUMMARY

Using a computer simulation model, we determined that an intervention aimed at improving the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is likely to be cost-effective to third-party health insurers only if it focuses on individuals with very high fracture risk and the proportion of prescriptions for generic bisphosphonates increases substantially.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to determine whether an evidence implementation program (intervention) focused on increasing appropriate management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) might be cost-effective compared with current practice (no intervention) from the perspective of a third-party health insurer.

METHODS

We developed a Markov microsimulation model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. The hypothetical patient cohort was of current chronic glucocorticoid users 50-65 years old and 70% female. Model parameters were derived from published literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The intervention resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $298,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and $206,000 per hip fracture averted. If the cohort's baseline risk of fracture was increased by 50% (10-year cumulative incidence of hip fracture of 14%), the ICERs improved significantly: $105,000 per QALY and $137,000 per hip fracture averted. The ICERs improved significantly if the proportion of prescriptions for generic bisphosphonates was increased to 75%, with $113,000 per QALY and $77,900 per hip fracture averted.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence implementation programs for the management of GIOP are likely to be cost-effective to third-party health insurers only if they are targeted at individuals with a very high risk of fracture and the proportion of prescriptions for less expensive generic bisphosphonates increases substantially.

Missed opportunities for osteoporosis treatment in patients hospitalized for hip fracture

OBJECTIVES

Although osteoporosis treatment can dramatically reduce fracture risk, rates of treatment after hip fracture remain low. In-hospital initiation of recommended medications has improved outcomes in heart disease; hospitalization for hip fracture may represent a similar opportunity for improvement. The objective of this study was to examine rates of in-hospital treatment with a combination of calcium and vitamin D (Cal+D) and antiresorptive or bone-forming medications in patients hospitalized for hip fractures

DESIGN

Observational cohort.

SETTING

Three hundred eighteen hospitals in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-one thousand three hundred forty-six patients aged 65 and older hospitalized for osteoporotic hip fracture.

MEASUREMENTS

In-hospital administration of Cal+D and antiresorptive or bone-forming medications.

RESULTS

Three thousand four hundred five patients (6.6%) received Cal+D anytime after a procedure to correct femoral fracture; 3,763 patients (7.3%) received antiresorptive or bone-forming medications. Only 1,023 patients (2.0%) were prescribed ideal therapy, receiving Cal+D and an antiresorptive or bone-forming medication. Treatment rates remained low across virtually all patient-, provider-, and hospital-level characteristics. The strongest predictor of treatment with Cal+D was the receipt of an antiresorptive or bone-forming medication (adjusted odds ratio=5.50, 95% confidence interval=4.84-6.25), but only 27.2% of patients who received these medications also received Cal+D.

CONCLUSION

Rates of in-hospital initiation of osteoporosis treatment for patients with hip fracture are low and may represent an opportunity to improve care.

FRAX®: a fracture risk-assessment tool

There is a need to identify patients with osteopenia who are at high risk of sustaining fractures and who would benefit from treatment, since many patients with osteopenia do not sustain fractures. In 2008, the WHO unveiled the fracture risk-assessment tool (FRAX®), which calculates the 10-year probability of a patient sustaining a fracture. It is available on the internet free of charge, and represents a major step forward since it takes into account a number of risk factors and allows clinicians to focus on those patients at high risk of sustaining fractures, in whom the benefits of treating a silent disease outweigh the potential adverse effects and cost. In the USA, the National Osteoporosis Foundation has suggested a fracture threshold to recommend treatment. In this article, the various risk factors included in the FRAX tool are briefly reviewed, and the advantages, potential limitations and possible future developments are discussed.

Effect of alendronate in elderly patients after low trauma hip fracture repair

SUMMARY

One year of once weekly alendronate, when given shortly after the surgical repair of a hip fracture, produces reductions in bone markers and increases proximal femoral bone density. The therapy was well tolerated.

INTRODUCTION

Hip fracture is the most devastating type of osteoporotic fracture and increases notably the risk of subsequent fractures. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the effects of 1 year therapy with a weekly dose of alendronate in the bone mineral density and bone markers in elderly patients after low trauma hip fracture repair.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty-nine patients (81 +/- 7 years; 79.8% women) were randomized to be treated either with calcium (500 mg/daily) and vitamin D(3) (400 IU/daily; Ca-Vit D group) or with alendronate (ALN, 70 mg/week) plus calcium and vitamin D(3) (500 mg/daily and 400 IU/daily, respectively; ALN + Ca-Vit D group).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven (61.5%) patients completed the trial. Alendronate increased proximal femoral bone mineral density (BMD) in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean difference (95% confidence interval); total hip 2.57% (0.67; 4.47); trochanteric 2.96% (0.71; 5.20), intertrochanteric 2.32% (0.36; 4.29)), but the differences were not significant in the BMD of the femoral neck (0.47%; (-2.03; 2.96) and the lumbar spine (0.69%; (-0.86; 2.23)). Bone turnover markers decreased during alendronate treatment.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates for the first time the anti-resorptive efficacy of alendronate given immediately after surgical repair in an elderly population with recent hip fracture. This effect should positively affect the rate of subsequent fractures.

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.

Compliance with osteoporosis treatment guidelines in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis continues to be poorly managed despite compelling statistics indicating increased morbidity and mortality associated with fractures. Guideline compliance in individual practices must be evaluated to implement improvements in the care of patients with this disease state.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate compliance with osteoporosis treatment guidelines by physicians and patients at 2 family medicine clinics affiliated with a large university teaching hospital.

METHODS

Postmenopausal women 65 years of age or older with the ICD-9 diagnosis code 733.0 for osteoporosis during the study period between July 2006 and July 2007 were identified through the family medicine electronic medical record (EMR). Of 133 patients, 113 were eligible for inclusion. A retrospective chart review was conducted and prospective voluntary telephone surveys were administered. The EMR of each eligible patient was examined for presence of a baseline dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan as well as appropriate follow-up DXA monitoring, appropriateness of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and fracture history. The telephone survey was used to assess the patients' calcium use, nonpharmacologic recommendations received, and fracture incidence after diagnosis of osteoporosis.

RESULTS

Of 113 patients diagnosed with osteoporosis, 68 of 82 (82.9%) had appropriate baseline DXA scans; however, only 9 (13.2%) of these 68 patients had appropriate follow-up scans every 2 years thereafter. Sixty-five (57.5%) patients were on Food and Drug Administration-approved, guideline-endorsed pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis. Thirty-five (70%) of the 50 participants in the telephone survey reported taking calcium regularly, and 41 (82%) patients recalled receiving some nonpharmacologic advice. Thirteen (26%) patients reported a fracture after diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis care can be measurably improved at these clinics with use of baseline and appropriate follow-up DXA scans, increasing the number of patients who receive pharmacotherapy, and providing ongoing reinforcement of nonpharmacologic measures whereby bone health may be maintained.

Orthopaedic management improves the rate of early osteoporosis treatment after hip fracture. A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Although osteoporosis is strongly associated with hip fractures, the initiation of osteoporosis treatment following hip fractures occurs at surprisingly low rates of between 5% and 30%. Currently, most patients receiving treatment have been referred back to their primary care physician for osteoporosis management. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of osteoporosis management initiated by the orthopaedic team and osteoporosis management initiated by the primary care physician on the rates of treatment at six months.

METHODS

A prospective randomized trial was conducted to assess the difference in the rate of osteoporosis treatment when an in-house assessment of osteoporosis was initiated by the orthopaedic surgeon and follow-up was conducted in a specialized orthopaedic osteoporosis clinic compared with osteoporosis education and "usual" care.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were enrolled in the study. Thirty-one patients each were in the control and intervention groups. The percentage of patients who were on pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis at six months after the fracture was significantly greater when the evaluation was initiated by the orthopaedic surgeon and was managed in a specialized orthopaedic osteoporosis clinic (58%) than when treatment was managed by a primary care physician (29%) (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

An active role by orthopaedic surgeons in the management of osteoporosis improves the rate of treatment at six months following a hip fracture.

Osteoporosis primer for the vertebroplasty practitioner: expanding the focus beyond needles and cement

Osteoporosis is a common cause of vertebral compression fractures. Although vertebroplasty is used to treat the pain, the risk of additional compression fractures is very high in these patients. Adequate evaluation and management of the underlying osteoporosis is critical to reducing the risk of subsequent fractures. Such an evaluation involves understanding the underlying physiology of osteoporosis and the role of calcium, vitamin D, prescription medication, and lifestyle changes. This brief review is intended to familiarize neuroradiologists with these aspects so they can advise patients about optimizing fracture risk reduction.

Simulation-based cost-utility analysis of population screening-based alendronate use in Switzerland

A simulation model adopting a health system perspective showed population-based screening with DXA, followed by alendronate treatment of persons with osteoporosis, or with anamnestic fracture and osteopenia, to be cost-effective in Swiss postmenopausal women from age 70, but not in men.

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a population-based screen-and-treat strategy for osteoporosis (DXA followed by alendronate treatment if osteoporotic, or osteopenic in the presence of fracture), compared to no intervention, from the perspective of the Swiss health care system.

METHODS

A published Markov model assessed by first-order Monte Carlo simulation was refined to reflect the diagnostic process and treatment effects. Women and men entered the model at age 50. Main screening ages were 65, 75, and 85 years. Age at bone densitometry was flexible for persons fracturing before the main screening age. Realistic assumptions were made with respect to persistence with intended 5 years of alendronate treatment. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

In women, costs per QALY were Swiss francs (CHF) 71,000, CHF 35,000, and CHF 28,000 for the main screening ages of 65, 75, and 85 years. The threshold of CHF 50,000 per QALY was reached between main screening ages 65 and 75 years. Population-based screening was not cost-effective in men.

CONCLUSION

Population-based DXA screening, followed by alendronate treatment in the presence of osteoporosis, or of fracture and osteopenia, is a cost-effective option in Swiss postmenopausal women after age 70.

Factors associated with pharmacologic treatment of osteoporosis in an older home care population

BACKGROUND

A number of studies have shown low rates of osteoporosis treatment. Few, if any, have assessed a comprehensive range of functional and clinical correlates of treatment coverage. Our objective was to examine which sociodemographic, clinical, and functional characteristics are associated with pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis among community-based seniors.

METHODS

The study sample included 48,689 home care clients aged >/= 65 years in Ontario, Canada. Treatment coverage (calcium and vitamin D and/or anti-osteoporotic drugs) was assessed in two subgroups, clients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis (without fracture) and those with a prevalent fracture. Sociodemographic, health, and functional measures available from the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC) were assessed as correlates of treatment in multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Approximately 59% of clients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis were receiving pharmacotherapy, compared with 27% of those with a prevalent fracture. For both subgroups, treatment coverage was significantly lower among clients with at least three chronic conditions, health instability, fewer than nine medications, functional impairment, and depressive symptoms and among those clients who were widowed. Among clients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis, treatment was positively associated with cognitive impairment and negatively associated with confinement to a wheelchair or bed. Men with a prevalent fracture were significantly less likely to receive treatment, particularly in the absence of an osteoporosis diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Many older adults with presumed osteoporosis in our study were not receiving drug therapy for this condition. Indicators of clinical instability and functional decline appear to represent influential factors in treatment decisions. Despite a lower likelihood of treatment among men with a prevalent fracture, this sex difference in treatment largely disappeared in the presence of an osteoporosis diagnosis.

Improving compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis

The successful treatment of patients at increased risk for fracture requires proper diagnosis and the development of a treatment plan that permits the patient to take medications in accordance with dosing guidelines and on the correct schedule. Data indicate that patients with osteoporosis who have good long-term medication compliance experience substantially lower risk of fracture. Persistence with therapy also correlates with better bone mineral density and improved suppression of bone turnover markers. Although bisphosphonates are the most potent currently approved antiresorptive agents, they have special dosing issues that can have a negative impact on long-term persistence. The inconvenience and complexity of some dosing requirements; the potential for adverse effects, especially when dosing recommendations are not followed; and very low absorption rates--even under ideal conditions--all contribute to poor outcomes. Extension of the dosing interval from a once-daily to a once-weekly regimen is associated with comparable efficacy, theoretically may improve gastrointestinal safety, and is associated with substantial improvement in persistence with therapy. However, compliance with weekly regimens remains suboptimal. Monthly dosing of ibandronate, a bisphosphonate, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although extending the dosing interval may improve compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate therapy, it is important to recognize that missed doses or improper dosing may have greater consequences with extended dosing intervals. This article highlights the importance of educating patients about their diagnosis and long-term treatment plan, including the importance of persistence with therapy and compliance with dosing recommendations.

A randomized study of two different information-based interventions on the management of osteoporosis in minimal and moderate trauma fractures

INTRODUCTION

Despite the high risk for subsequent fracture following an initial osteoporotic fracture, the majority of subjects with minimal trauma fractures receive no treatment for osteoporosis. The primary aim of this investigation was to determine whether an information-based intervention could change post-fracture management of osteoporosis. A secondary aim was to define participant- and doctor-related barriers to osteoporosis management.

METHODS

Consecutive fracture patients (n=254) from the outpatient fracture clinic at St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney were interviewed over a 15-month period (February 2002-July 2003). Fracture risk factors, prior investigation and treatment for osteoporosis were collected at baseline. Participants were initially contacted after 3 months to ascertain follow-up management. All those not investigated or treated by their primary care physician were then randomized to either a personalized letter or the same letter plus an offer of a free bone mineral density (BMD) test. Participants were contacted after 9 months to record further investigations or treatment for osteoporosis.

RESULTS

Less than 20% of the participants had a primary care physician follow-up 3 months after the fracture, leaving 159 who were randomized to a personalized letter (n=79) and a personalized letter plus the offer of a free BMD test (n=80). There was a significant increase in the number of people investigated for osteoporosis in the group receiving the letter plus BMD offer [38% (letter + BMD) vs. 7% (letter only); p=0.001). A high proportion of those tested had low BMD (49% osteopenia and 17% osteoporosis). However, the rates of treatment in both groups were very low (6%). Furthermore, even among the few individuals (23%) who contacted their primary care physician, only 25% were recommended treatment. The belief that the fracture was osteoporotic was an independent predictor of having a BMD test, a primary care physician follow-up and treatment. Other independent predictors were age over 50 years for a primary care physician follow-up, female sex for having a BMD test and having had a BMD test for treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that an information-based intervention led to a modest increase in the proportion of people investigated for osteoporosis; however. there was no significant effect on treatment rates. The offer of a free BMD assessment was associated with a significantly higher rate of investigation than a personalized letter alone (odds ratio: 8.5; 95% confidence interval: 3.1-24.5), but this investigation did not affect treatment rate. The low uptake of either a BMD or a visit to a primary care physician together with low rates of treatment recommendation even among people who contacted their primary care physician reflects significant participant and doctor-related barriers to osteoporosis management.

Osteoporosis intervention in ambulatory patients with previous hip fracture: a multicentric, nationwide Italian survey

Our study investigated the patterns of treatment and adherence to prescribed therapies in 2,191 ambulatory patients with previous hip osteoporotic fractures at 207 participating orthopedic centers throughout Italy. All patients who came to the attention of the involved orthopedic surgeons were administered a questionnaire investigating: age, sex, height, weight, date of admission and length of stay in the hospital, other previous clinical fractures, bone density or biochemical testing concerning mineral metabolism, treatment with bone-active drugs in the six months before the fracture, treatment after discharge from the hospital, continuous use of prescribed drugs, pain at the site of hip surgery, and comorbidity. A multivariate logistic regression model was applied, considering a subset of the variables in the questionnaire, in order to determine the factors that significantly influenced discontinuation of treatment after hip fracture. Among the patients, 88.1% were female and 86.2% of the subjects were older than 65. The mean length of hospital stay for hip fracture was 19.0+/-25.3 days. At the time of interview, the mean time elapsed since hospitalization was 542.9+/-1,197.3 days. A previous clinical fracture was referred by 20.2% of patients. Before hip fracture occurrence, 52.8% of patients had never received any kind of treatment, and this figure reached 80% if we also included those who had taken only calcium and/or vitamin D. Corresponding proportions after fracture were 22% and 31.3%, respectively. Finally, 52% of patients had stopped treatment given for osteoporosis after a mean period of 1.4 years. According to the results of the logistic regression, increasing age, pain [odds ratio (OR): 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-1.65] and no use of diagnostic tests (OR: 2.46; CI: 1.79-3.37) showed a positive effect on the probability of quitting the medication. On the other hand, being female reduces by half (OR: 0.49; CI: 0.37-0.45) the probability of quitting medication. Our data showed a low rate of primary prevention, a still insufficient post-fracture therapy, along with a high rate of early discontinuation of osteoporosis medication in patients with previous hip fracture.

The relationship between bone mineral density and fracture risk

Osteoporosis is a disorder characterized by low bone density and impaired bone strength which is an important risk factor for fracture in older adults. The diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women is now based on bone density testing by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry but not other methodologies. However, a specific but arbitrary diagnostic threshold must be distinguished from a strategy to assess fracture risk. In untreated postmenopausal women and older men, bone density is an important, but not the only, determinant for fracture risk. Combining bone density measurements with other independent and validated risk factors for fracture provides a much more accurate assessment of an individual patient's risk for fracture than does bone density alone. The most important of these other risk factors are age and prior fracture history. Clinical guidelines will move away from recommending treatment at specific T scores toward intervention thresholds based on absolute fracture risk. By basing who to treat on fracture probability, therapy can be targeted to those patients who would receive the greatest benefit.