The impact of a simple fracture clinic intervention in improving the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in fragility fracture patients

We examined the effect of a fracture clinic intervention in reducing previously documented undertreatment of osteoporosis (OP) in individuals with fragility fractures. Fragility fracture patients presenting to five community fracture clinics with no prior diagnosis of, or treatment for OP, and whose radiographic appearance was consistent with fragility fracture, were included. These individuals (intervention group) were informed of their OP risk, and advised to follow up with their physician for assessment. A standardized letter, intended for the physician and outlining the same was provided. Three months later, a telephone interview determined whether a physician visit had occurred, and if so, what investigation and treatment recommendations were made. These outcomes were compared with those for an equal number of age- and sex-matched fragility fracture "controls," selected from among fracture clinic attendees in the 6-9 months preceding the intervention. Logistic regression was used to examine the effect of having received the intervention on physician follow-up, bone density testing, and OP treatment recommendations. The mean age of the 278 participants (139 per group) was 66.0 years; 74% were female. Adjusting for age, sex, hospital, and perceived diagnosis of OP, those who received the intervention were more likely to follow up with a physician (adjusted OR 1.85, p=0.02) and to be recommended bone density testing (adjusted OR 5.22, p<0.0001), but were not more likely to receive an OP treatment recommendation (adjusted OR 2.07, p=0.07). It is concluded that a simple fracture clinic intervention increased follow-up and investigation, but not treatment for OP, in fragility fracture patients. Individuals recommended treatment for OP were more likely to perceive themselves as having OP and to have had a previous fragility fracture. Our findings suggest that future interventions should incorporate assessment of patients' OP health beliefs and education about risk factors for fracture, and should be coupled with physician education to achieve optimal results.     

Rehabilitation of Patients With Osteoporotic Fractures

Osteoporosis is a silent, asymptomatic disease until a fragility fracture is sustained. Fractures greatly affect the physical functioning and health-related quality of life and are associated with increased mortality and morbidity rates. Furthermore, once a fragility fracture occurs, the patient is more susceptible to sustain further fractures. Repeated falls are the main causes of fractures in patients with osteoporosis. The management of osteoporosis postfracture is a combination of medical treatment, nutritional interventions, and rehabilitation in order to improve activities of daily living to prevent falls and increase safety while reducing the loss of bone mass. In this article the principles of fracture prevention and physical rehabilitation of patients with osteoporosis postvertebral and hip fragility fractures will be discussed, as well as the rehabilitation management to prevent further falls and fractures.     

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.     

A prospective clinical practice intervention to improve osteoporosis management following distal forearm fracture

Secondary prevention of osteoporosis after fracture is underutilized, despite cost-effective therapies. This clinical practice intervention aimed to improve osteoporosis care of the postfracture patient. Residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, USA, age 45 who sustained a moderate trauma distal forearm fracture were identified, and participants received educational materials, referral for bone densitometry and physician consultation to address osteoporosis in January 1999 through October 2000. Osteoporosis educational materials were provided to patients at the time of recruitment, and primary care physicians provided osteoporosis practice guidelines. Outcomes included: completion of bone densitometry, acceptance of interventions at the first postfracture primary care physician visit, and adherence to advice at 6 months. There were 105 patients identified (80% women), but only 58 agreed to participate (88% women). Women with lower T-scores (<–1.5) had an 89% initial treatment rate, and 67% were adherent to treatment at 6 months. All women with normal bone density (T-score above –1.5) were advised by their primary care physicians about antiresorptive treatment, and 100% adhered to these recommendations, even though they were not eligible for such treatment based on the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines. None of the men accepted the treatments offered, despite T-scores that fell at or below the NOF treatment threshold. Bone densitometry and consultation improved osteoporosis interventions after index fracture from a 16% baseline rate in the population (1993–1997) to a 45% overall rate for the study population. In summary, while referral for bone densitometry and discussion by a physician about postfracture osteoporosis preventive treatments did increase treatment rate, the majority of patients at highest risk did not accept interventions. Further initiatives are needed to overcome both system and patient barriers.     

Predicting various fragility fractures in women by forearm bone densitometry: A follow-up study

Summary This is a follow-up of a previous study on the predictive power of bone mineral measurements; two more observation years have been added. A group of women (n=1076) had their forearm bone mineral content (BMC) measured from 1970–1976. All fractures that occurred in 1975–1987 (13 years) were recorded. Four hundred sixty-nine fragility fractures occurred during the collection period. Again, it was found that BMC at the distal end of the forearm is a good predictor of future fracture before the age of 70. The measurement at the proximal site (forearm shafts), however, in contrast to our previous study, has a capacity of predicting fracture also in the age group 70–80. BMC measurements were good predictors of vertebral crush fractures and trochanteric hip fracture but lesser predictors of fractures of the distal end of the forearm. In age groups 40–70, BMC was a stronger predictor of fracture than age, and the risk associated with a 1 SD decrease of BMC 6 was 3.2 for a hip fracture as compared with those without any fragility fracture, even when adjusted for age. In addition to BMC, low body weight was a fracture predictor. Body weight 5 kg below age-adjusted mean increased the risk of a trochanteric hip fracture by 30%. The data are used in hypothetical calculations of the effects of screening.     

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.     

Underutilization of antiosteoporotic drugs by orthopedic surgeons for prevention of a secondary osteoporotic fracture

Background Despite the availability of effective treatment and well-publicized treatment guidelines for preventing osteoporotic fractures, there are significant gaps in implementing the recommendations, and it is unknown how many patients are treated for prevention of secondary osteoporotic fractures. In this study, we investigate what percentage of osteoporosis patients were treated with antiosteoporotic drugs after osteoporotic fractures of the hip, wrist, and proximal humerus, and we discuss here the need for improvement in the treatment of osteoporosis following fracture. Methods We studied 422 patients with osteoporotic fractures, 91 men and 331 women, with an average age of 77.1 years (range, 52–102 years). The 422 cases consisted of 299 hip fractures, 97 distal radius fractures, and 26 proximal humerus fractures. All patients underwent surgical intervention. The variables were examined to ascertain whether osteoporosis patients were medicated with antiosteoporotic drugs at postfracture. Results Fifty-five (13%) of the 422 patients received antiosteoporotic medication at postfracture. Pharmaceutical treatment was given in 44 cases (14.7%) of hip fractures, 8 cases (8.2%) of distal radius fractures, and 3 cases (11.5%) of proximal humerus fractures. Thirty-one (7.3% of total) of the 55 patients were taking the same medication pre- and postfracture. Seven (1.7%) of the 55 were administered a different drug compared to before the fracture, and 17 (4%) started to take an antiosteoporotic drug for the first time subsequent to the fracture. Conclusions The present rate of treatment is insufficient given the high risk of secondary fractures and the availability of appropriate drugs that would reduce that risk.     

Utility of fragility fracture prediction tools in a group of postmenopausal women

ObjectivesFractures are a common complication of osteoporosis. The main aim of our study was to assess the relation between fractures identified as low energy fractures (fragility), bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular bone score (TBS), and handgrip in a group of postmenopausal women. An additional aim was to determine the relation between fragility fractures and age, height loss, and falls (reported in the last 12 months and 5 years).Material and methodsThe study was conducted in a group of 120 (mean age 69 years; 59–81, SD 5.3) postmenopausal patients who were referred to the Medical Centre for an osteoporosis screening appointment by their general practitioner. All patients were interviewed (with a questionnaire containing questions on fracture risk factors and highest height), had their anthropometric measures taken (current height and weight) as well as TBS analysis following their DXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) scan and handgrip measure.ResultsSixty patients from the study group had a history of fractures (with a total of 92 fractures), of whom 39 women (76 fractures) were identified as those with a low-energy fracture. Fragility fractures were more likely to be reported in older patients (Me 71 vs. 68 years, p < 0.05). Differences observed between TBS, handgrip and BMD in reference to fragility fractures were not statistically significant. Analysis showed significant correlations between BMD (neck and L1–L4) and TBS fracture risk categories. Falls reported in the last 5 years and height loss were factors which correlated with fragility fractures (p < 0.05).ConclusionsRisk of fragility fractures increases with age. Bone mineral density is insufficient as a fracture risk assessment tool. Information on falls and height loss may provide additional data on fracture risk assessment.