Targeted Coaching to Improve Osteoporosis Therapy Adherence: A Single Arm Variation of the C-STOP Study.

BACKGROUND: In this pre-planned variation of the Comparing Strategies Targeting Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures After an Upper Extremity Fracture (C-STOP) trial, we investigated whether adherence-specific coaching by the case manager (CM) further improved the adherence and persistence rates compared to those seen in the C-STOP trial. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of community-dwelling adults 50 years or older who suffered an upper-extremity fracture and were not previously treated with osteoporosis medications, to assess whether a well-trained CM can partner with patients to improve adherence to and persistence with oral bisphosphonate intake. The primary outcome was adherence (taking > 80% of prescribed doses) to oral bisphosphonate intake at 12 months after study enrollment. Secondary outcomes included primary adherence to and 12-month persistence with oral bisphosphonate and calcium and vitamin D supplement intake at 12 months. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 84 participants, of which 30 were prescribed an oral bisphosphonate. Twenty-two (73.3%) started treatment within 3 months. The adherence rate at 12 months was 77.3%. The persistence rate at 12 months was 95.5%. Of those not prescribed an oral bisphosphonate, 62.8% were taking supplemental calcium and 93.0% were taking supplemental vitamin D at 12 months. Depression was a significant predictor of 12-month non-adherence (adjusted odds ratio, 9.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-81.5). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence-specific coaching by a CM did not further improve the level of medication adherence achieved in the original C-STOP study. Importantly, these results can inform adherence in future intervention studies.

Patients' Experiences of Nurse Case-Managed Osteoporosis Care: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a chronic condition that is often left untreated. Nurse case-managers can double rates of appropriate treatment in those with new fractures. However, little is known about patients' experiences of a nurse case-managed approach to osteoporosis care. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to describe patients' experiences of nurse case-managed osteoporosis care. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive design was used. We recruited patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of a nurse case-management approach. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted which were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. Data were managed with ATLAS.ti version 7. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 female case-managed patients. Most (60%) were 60-years or older, 27% had previous fracture, 80% had low bone mineral density tests, and 87% had good osteoporosis knowledge. Three major themes emerged from our analysis: acceptable information to inform decision-making; reasonable and accessible care provided; and appropriate information to meet patient needs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insights about older female patients' experiences with nurse case-managed care for osteoporosis. Our findings suggest that this model to osteoporosis clinical care should be sustained and expanded in this setting, if proven effective. In addition, our findings point to the importance of applying patient-centered care across all dimensions of quality to better enhance the patients' experience of their health care.

Comparing Strategies Targeting Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures After an Upper Extremity Fracture (C-STOP Trial): A Randomized Controlled Trial.

We compared osteoporosis care after upper extremity fragility fracture using a low-intensity Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) versus a high-intensity FLS in a pragmatic patient-level parallel-arm comparative effectiveness trial undertaken at a Canadian academic hospital. A low-intensity FLS (active-control) that identified patients and notified primary care providers was compared to a high-intensity FLS (case manager) where a specially-trained nurse identified patients, investigated bone health, and initiated appropriate treatment. A total of 361 community-dwelling participants 50 years or older with upper extremity fractures who were not on bisphosphonate treatment were included; 350 (97%) participants completed 6-month follow-up undertaken by assessors blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was difference in bisphosphonate treatment between groups 6 months postfracture; secondary outcomes included differences in bone mineral density (BMD) testing and a predefined composite measure termed "appropriate care" (taking or making an informed decision to decline medication for those with low BMD; not taking bisphosphonate treatment for those with normal BMD). Absolute differences (%), relative risks (RR with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]), number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and direct costs were compared. A total of 181 participants were randomized to active-control and 180 to case-manager using computer-generated randomization; the groups were similar on study entry. At 6 months, 51 (28%) active-control versus 86 (48%) case-manager participants started bisphosphonate treatment (20% absolute difference; RR 1.70; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.24; p < 0.0001; NNT = 5). Of active-controls, 108 (62%) underwent BMD testing compared to 128 (73%) case-managed patients (11% absolute difference; RR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.36; p = 0.03). Appropriate care was received by 76 (44%) active-controls and 133 (76%) case-managed participants (32% absolute difference; RR 1.73; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.09; p < 0.0001). The direct cost per participant was $18 Canadian (CDN) for the active-control intervention compared to $66 CDN for the case-manager intervention. In summary, case-management led to substantially greater improvements in bisphosphonate treatment and appropriate care within 6 months of fracture than the active control. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Interventions to increase osteoporosis treatment in patients with 'incidentally' detected vertebral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Most vertebral compression fractures are not recognized or treated. We conducted a controlled trial in older patients with vertebral fractures incidentally reported on chest radiographs, comparing usual care with osteoporosis interventions directed at physicians (opinion-leader-endorsed evidence summaries and reminders) or physicians+patients (adding activation with leaflets and telephone counseling). METHODS: Patients aged >60 years who were discharged home from emergency departments and who had vertebral fractures reported but were not treated for osteoporosis were allocated to usual care (control) or physician intervention using alternate-week time series. After 3 months, untreated controls were re-allocated to physician+patient intervention. Allocation was concealed, outcomes ascertainment blinded, and analyses intent-to-treat. Primary outcome was starting osteoporosis treatment within 3 months. RESULTS: There were 1315 consecutive patients screened, and 240 allocated to control (n=123) or physician intervention (n=117). Groups were similar at baseline (average age 74 years, 45% female, 58% previous fractures). Compared with controls, physician interventions significantly (all P <.001) increased osteoporosis treatment (20 [17%] vs 2 [2%]), bone mineral density testing (51 [44%] vs 5 [4%]), and bone mineral density testing or treatment (57 [49%] vs 7 [6%]). Three months after controls were re-allocated to physician+patient interventions, 22% had started treatment and 65% had bone mineral density testing or treatment (P <.001 vs controls). Physician+patient interventions increased bone mineral density testing or treatment an additional 16% compared with physician interventions (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: An opinion-leader-based intervention targeting physicians substantially improved rates of bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment in patients with incidental vertebral fractures, compared with usual care. Even better osteoporosis management was achieved by adding patient activation to physician interventions [NCT00388908].

Multifaceted intervention to improve diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with recent wrist fracture: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older patients who experience a fragility fracture are at high risk of future fractures but are rarely tested or treated for osteoporosis. We developed a multifaceted intervention directed at older patients with wrist fractures (in the form of telephone-based education) and their physicians (in the form of guidelines endorsed by opinion leaders, supported by reminders) to improve the quality of osteoporosis care. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial with blinded ascertainment of outcomes, we compared our intervention with usual care (provision of printed educational materials to patients). Eligible patients were those older than 50 years of age who had experienced a wrist fracture and were seen in emergency departments and fracture clinics; we excluded those who were already being treated for osteoporosis. The primary outcome was bisphosphonate treatment within 6 months after the fracture. Secondary outcomes included bone mineral density testing, "appropriate care" (consisting of bone mineral density testing with treatment if bone mass was low) and quality of life. RESULTS: We screened 795 patients for eligibility and randomly assigned 272 to the intervention (137 patients) or control (135 patients) group. The median age was 60 years; 210 (77%) of the subjects were women, and 130 (48%) reported a previous fracture as an adult. Six months after the fracture, 30 (22%) of the intervention patients, as compared with 10 (7%) of the control patients, were receiving bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis (adjusted relative risk [RR] 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-5.1, p = 0.008). Intervention patients were more likely than control patients to undergo bone mineral density testing (71/137 [52%] v. 24/135 [18%]; adjusted RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.9-4.2, p < 0.001) and to receive appropriate care (52/137 [38%] v. 15/135 [11%]; adjusted RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.3, p < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in other outcomes. One patient died, and 4 others experienced recurrent fracture. INTERPRETATION: A multifaceted intervention directed at high-risk patients and their physicians substantially increased rates of testing and treatment for osteoporosis. Nevertheless, more than half of the patients in the intervention group were not receiving appropriate care 6 months after their fracture, which suggests that additional strategies should be explored. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00152321.).