Improving diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis: evaluation of a clinical pathway for low trauma fractures

Primary care follow-up of patients after attending a fracture liaison service: an integrative review

Based on a small number of predominantly low-to-moderate quality studies with moderate-to-high risk of bias, the FLS-to-primary care transition is portrayed as a challenging time for patients, GPs, and FLS clinicians, who experience numerous barriers to care continuation and coordination at this care juncture.

PURPOSE

Continuity and coordination of care between fracture liaison services (FLS) and primary care is required for optimal long-term osteoporosis care. This study aims to explore (1) how patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) experience the FLS to primary care transition, (2) the barriers and facilitators to primary care follow-up after FLS, and (3) interventions that enhance integration of FLS with primary care.

METHODS

An integrative review was performed and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) Statement 2020. Online bibliographic databases were searched using the terms "osteoporosis", "primary care", and "fracture liaison services" and related terms for original English-language studies conducted between January 1, 2003 and December 29, 2023. Manuscripts were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria, and for quality and bias using validated instruments. Thematic analysis was used to extract key themes relevant to each research question.

RESULTS

Overall, 14 relevant manuscripts were identified. Among the four studies that addressed patient and HCP experience of the FLS-to-primary care transition, five key themes emerged: (1) time and workload pressures, (2) limited confidence in primary care follow-up, (3) GP knowledge gaps, (4) siloed or disconnected care, and (5) communication issues. Twelve studies addressed barriers and facilitators to primary care follow-up after FLS, which fell into five themes: (1) patient knowledge and understanding (2) miscommunication and misinformation, (3) understanding roles and responsibilities, (4) GP engagement, and (5) GP-patient relationship. Additionally, single studies suggested healthcare policies and funding, accessing primary care from residential facilities, and GP gender influenced primary care follow-up. Five studies detailed interventions to enhance FLS-to-primary care integration. GP education and patient reminders, delivered as part of a multifaceted intervention, appeared to improve integration of acute and primary post-fracture care; however, the contribution of these individual interventions to outcomes remains unclear. While telephone coaching and bone marker monitoring were identified as potential interventions, there was insufficient evidence to conclude they are effective.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence was generally low-to-moderate quality with moderate-to-high risk of bias. Integration of the available evidence portrays the FLS-to-primary care transition as a challenging time for patients, GPs, and FLS clinicians, who experience a multitude of barriers to care continuation and coordination. There is insufficient data to support any single intervention as effective for enhancing care coordination beyond those considered standard components of FLS models. Knowledge gaps exist regarding the patient experience of the FLS-to-primary care transition, facilitators to primary care follow-up, interventions to support FLS integration with primary care, and how such information may be integrated to optimise care for patients with osteoporosis.

Bone Health Screening Prior to Medicare Eligibility-Osteoporosis Screening and Fracture Prevention After Distal Radius Fractures in Patients Aged 50-59

PURPOSE

Current guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) testing after fragility fractures in patients aged 50 years or older. This study aimed to assess BMD testing and subsequent fragility fractures after low-energy distal radius fractures (DRFs) among patients aged 50-59 years.

METHODS

We used the 2010-2020 MarketScan dataset to identify patients with initial DRFs with ages ranging between 50 and 59 years. We assessed the 1-year BMD testing rate and 3-year non-DRF fragility fracture rate. We created Kaplan-Meier plots to depict fragility fracture-free probabilities over time and used log-rank tests to compare the Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Among 78,389 patients aged 50-59 years with DRFs, 24,589 patients met our inclusion criteria, and most patients were women (N = 17,580, 71.5%). The BMD testing rate within 1 year after the initial DRF was 12.7% (95% CI, 12.3% to 13.2%). In addition, 1-year BMD testing rates for the age groups of 50-54 and 55-59 years were 10.4% (95% CI, 9.9% to 11.0%) and 14.9% (95% CI, 14.2% to 15.6%), respectively. Only 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5% to 2.1%) of men, compared with 17.1% (95% CI, 16.5% to 17.7%) of women, underwent BMD testing within 1 year after the initial fracture. The overall 3-year fragility fracture rate was 6.0% (95% CI, 5.6% to 6.3%). The subsequent fragility fracture rate was lower for those with any BMD testing (4.4%; 95% CI, 3.7% to 5.2%), compared with those without BMD testing (6.2%; 95% CI, 5.9% to 6.6%; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

We report a low BMD testing rate for patients aged between 50 and 59 years after initial isolated DRFs, especially for men and patients aged between 50 and 54 years. Patients who received BMD testing had a lower rate of subsequent fracture within 3 years. We recommend that providers follow published guidelines and initiate an osteoporosis work-up for patients with low-energy DRFs to ensure early diagnosis. This provides an opportunity to initiate treatment that may prevent subsequent fractures.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis II.

The integrated structure of care: evidence for the efficacy of models of clinical governance in the prevention of fragility fractures after recent sentinel fracture after the age of 50 years

Randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the implementation of clinical governance models, in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture, were examined. Literature was systematically reviewed and summarized by a panel of experts who formulated recommendations for the Italian guideline.

PURPOSE

After experiencing a fracture, several strategies may be adopted to reduce the risk of recurrent fragility fractures and associated morbidity and mortality. Clinical governance models, such as the fracture liaison service (FLS), have been introduced for the identification, treatment, and monitoring of patients with secondary fragility fractures. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the association between multidisciplinary care systems and several outcomes in patients with a fragility fracture in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were investigated up to December 2020 to update the search of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed clinical governance models in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture were eligible. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic therapy initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, and mortality risk, while secondary outcomes were quality of life and physical performance.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs and 62 observational studies, ranging from very low to low quality for bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, mortality, met our inclusion criteria. The implementation of clinical governance models compared to their pre-implementation or standard care/non-attenders significantly improved BMD testing rate, and increased the number of patients who initiated antiosteoporotic therapy and enhanced their adherence to the medications. Moreover, the treatment by clinical governance model respect to standard care/non-attenders significantly reduced the risk of subsequent fracture and mortality. The integrated structure of care enhanced the quality of life and physical function among patients with fragility fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, clinicians should promote the management of patients experiencing a fragility fracture through structured and integrated models of care. The task force has formulated appropriate recommendations on the implementation of multidisciplinary care systems in patients with, or at risk of, fragility fractures.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

What is the Role of Coordinators in the Secondary Fracture Prevention Program?

Background

The purpose of this study is to search for reports on the clinical effectiveness of FLS being implemented worldwide through the systematic review, analyze the roles of coordinators in each study, and provide basic data for the development of future coordinator education programs.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature using the Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library was conducted for using the following keywords: ‘osteoporosis’ AND ‘fractures’ AND ’secondary prevention’. Finally, 65 studies are included in this study.

Results

At the coordinator-based fracture liaison service (FLS) center, the coordinator (often a nurse) acts as a central player in the establishing of patient connections, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, and attending physicians. Coordinators help bridge the nursing gap by supporting identification, investigation, initiation of treatment, and patient follow-up. Medics has opened the way to effectively manage patients at high risk of developing another fracture. In addition, nurses are in a unique and important role as nurses responsible for enhancing their daily lives by building relationships with patients and families.

Conclusions

The coordinator in the FLS program plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of vulnerable fractures, as well as in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis and in maintaining continuity of treatment. In the future, the broader role of coordinators should be systematically organized and developed into accredited educational programs.

Identifying characteristics of an effective fracture liaison service: systematic literature review

Fracture liaison services (FLS) have been demonstrated to improve outcomes following osteoporotic fracture. The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to determine the characteristics of an FLS that lead to improved patient outcomes. We conducted a SLR, including articles published between 2000 and February 2017, using global (Medline, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library) and local databases. Studies including patients aged ≥ 50 years with osteoporotic fractures enrolled in an FLS were assessed. Information extracted from each article included key person coordinating the FLS (physician, nurse or other healthcare professional), setting (hospital vs community), intensity (single vs multiple), duration (long vs short term), fracture type and gender. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was conducted based on the key person coordinating the FLS. Out of 7236 articles, 57 were considered to be high quality and identified for further analysis. The SLR identified several components which contributed to FLS success, including multidisciplinary involvement, driven by a dedicated case manager, regular assessment and follow-up, multifaceted interventions and patient education. Meta-analytic data confirm the effectiveness of an FLS following an osteoporotic fracture: approximate 27% increase in the likelihood of BMD testing and up to 21% increase in the likelihood of treatment initiation compared with usual care. The balance of evidence indicates that the multifaceted FLS and dedicated coordination are important success factors that contribute to effective FLS interventions which reduce fracture-related morbidity and mortality.

Fracture liaison services for osteoporosis in the Asia-Pacific region: current unmet needs and systematic literature review

The analysis aimed to identify the treatment gaps in current fracture liaison services (FLS) and to provide recommendations for best practice establishment of future FLS across the Asia-Pacific region. The findings emphasize the unmet need for the implementation of new programs and provide recommendations for the refinement of existing ones. The study's objectives were to evaluate fracture liaison service (FLS) programs in the Asia-Pacific region and provide recommendations for establishment of future FLS programs. A systematic literature review (SLR) of Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (2000-2017 inclusive) was performed using the following keywords: osteoporosis, fractures, liaison, and service. Inclusion criteria included the following: patients ≥ 50 years with osteoporosis-related fractures; randomized controlled trials or observational studies with control groups (prospective or retrospective), pre-post, cross-sectional and economic evaluation studies. Success of direct or indirect interventions was assessed based on patients' understanding of risk, bone mineral density assessment, calcium intake, osteoporosis treatment, re-fracture rates, adherence, and mortality, in addition to cost-effectiveness. Overall, 5663 unique citations were identified and the SLR identified 159 publications, reporting 37 studies in Asia-Pacific. These studies revealed the unmet need for public health education, adequate funding, and staff resourcing, along with greater cooperation between departments and physicians. These actions can help to overcome therapeutic inertia with sufficient follow-up to ensure adherence to recommendations and compliance with treatment. The findings also emphasize the importance of primary care physicians continuing to prescribe treatment and ensure service remains convenient. These findings highlight the limited evidence supporting FLS across the Asia-Pacific region, emphasizing the unmet need for new programs and/or refinement of existing ones to improve outcomes. With the continued increase in burden of fractures in Asia-Pacific, establishment of new FLS and assessment of existing services are warranted to determine the impact of FLS for healthcare professionals, patients, family/caregivers, and society.

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.

Key outcomes are usually not reported in published fracture secondary prevention programs: results of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A secondary analysis of a systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis (OP) investigation and treatment was conducted to examine reported key outcomes: (1) the cost of the intervention; (2) the proportion of patients taking OP medication beyond 6 months of the intervention; and (3) the proportion of patients who re-fractured.

METHODS

Fifty-seven articles reporting on 54 studies (64 interventions) from 11 countries were included. Intervention studies to improve OP management were eligible if they were conducted in an orthopedic setting and included primary data on ≥20 patients presenting with a hip fracture or any fragility fracture. To compare outcome data across all interventions regardless of study design, an equated proportion (EP) using a denominator based on the intention-to-treat principle was derived. Whether a cost analysis had been conducted, the EP of patients who were taking medication beyond 6 months of the intervention, and the EP of patients who re-fractured during the study period were documented.

RESULTS

Of the 54 studies, 2 reported a cost analysis and demonstrated that the interventions were at least cost-effective. The EP for medication use beyond 6 months of the intervention ranged from 17 to 56% for four studies. The EP for re-fracture ranged from 0 to 5% for four studies.

CONCLUSION

Most interventions did not report key outcomes. In addition, authors used varying time frames for re-fracture and medication use, making direct comparisons impossible. Authors should consider including intervention costs, medication use beyond 6 months of the intervention, and re-fracture data in future fracture secondary prevention programs.

A review of patient-centred post-fracture interventions in the context of theories of health behaviour change

The purpose of this literature review is to determine whether and to what extent current post-fracture osteoporosis interventions utilize theories of health behaviour change and whether those that are theory-based are more successful in producing desired behaviour changes. Studies were identified by applying additional criteria to the final selection stage of a systematic review of non-surgical osteoporosis interventions in the orthopaedic environment. We identified 42 primary studies targeted at patients and improving post-fracture osteoporosis care. As well as describing the studies (in terms of design, population, interventions, outcomes), we focused on theoretical framework and elements of behaviour change models. The 42 studies included in this review utilized a variety of post-fracture interventions; however, none of them reported using an underlying theoretical base. Only three studies drew on what we felt to be elements of a theoretical framework. The lack of theoretically based studies points to a currently under-utilized area of behaviour change research that could be applied to post-fracture interventions in order to make them more effective. Despite an abundance of literature supporting theories of behaviour change, post-fracture osteoporosis interventions do not report utilizing these theories. Theories of behaviour change could be applied to post-fracture osteoporosis interventions to explain why patients initiate osteoporosis management. Future research should explore the application of theories of health behaviour change to post-fracture interventions.

Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients

This study aims to determine osteoporosis (OP) investigation and treatment within post-fracture initiatives conducted in fracture clinics and other orthopedic environments. A systematic review was conducted. Eligibility criteria were: hip fracture patients plus all other fracture patients presenting with a fragility fracture, orthopedic setting where orthopedic physicians/staff were involved, intervention to improve OP management, primary data on ≥20 patients from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other study designs. We calculated outcome data within 6 months of screening from an intention-to-treat principle to derive an equated proportion (EP) across interventions. Outcomes were: (1) proportion of patients investigated with bone densitometry, (2) proportion of patients initiating OP medication, and (3) proportion of patients taking OP medication. We identified 2,259 citations, of which 57 articles that included 64 intervention groups were eligible. The median EP for patients investigated was 43% and the 75th percentile was 71%. The median EP for medication initiation was 22% and the 75th percentile was 34%. The median EP for medication taking was 27.5% and the 75th percentile was 43%. The EPs for all outcomes were higher for interventions with dedicated personnel to implement the intervention and those within which bone mineral density testing and/or treatment were included. In studies with an EP, up to 71% of patients were investigated for OP, but <35% initiated medication, and <45% were taking medication within 6 months of screening. Calculating an EP allowed us to compare outcomes across the studies, therefore capturing both RCTs and other study designs typical of real-world settings.