Patients not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication now prescribed medication through Ontario FLS.

In an Ontario fracture liaison service (FLS), we compared medication prescription rates among patients not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to those with no previous prescription. Prescription rates were similar between these two groups of patients. The FLS provided a secondary opportunity for patients to initiate bone active medication. PURPOSE: We compared bone active medication prescription rates among patients presenting to an Ontario fracture liaison service (FLS) who reported not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to those with no history of prescription. METHODS: Eligible patients were those screened in 39 fracture clinics between July 1, 2017, and September 15, 2019, who were not taking bone active medication at the time of screening and classified as high risk for future fracture based on CAROC or FRAX. Sociodemographic and clinical risk factor variables were assessed at screening. Bone active medication prescription rate was assessed within 6 months of screening and defined as having received a prescription for the medication from either a specialist or primary care provider. In cases where a specialist report was not available, patient self-reported data were collected. The chi-square test of independence was used to assess differences in prescription rates. RESULTS: Of 17,575 patients screened, eligible patients were 350 with a previous prescription and 2644 without a previous prescription. Compared with patients who reported no previous prescription, those who had a previous prescription were older, more likely to be female and to report a previous fracture, and less likely to smoke. There was no statistically significant difference between the medication prescription rate of patients with a previous prescription (73.7%) compared to patients with no previous prescription (70.7%) (p = 0.157). CONCLUSION: A large jurisdiction-wide FLS approach provided a secondary opportunity to patients who were not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to initiate that medication.

Fragility fracture patients with a history of prior fractures more likely to present with multiple risk factors: findings from a province-wide fracture liaison service.

We examined the demographic characteristics and risk factors of FLS fragility fracture patients who had sustained prior fragility fracture(s) and found that this is an important high-risk subgroup that warrants further attention within FLS priority pathways in order to disrupt their fragility fracture cycle. PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to examine whether fragility fracture patients presenting to a provincial fracture liaison service (FLS) having a history of prior fractures, versus those without, differ in demographic characteristics and risk factors for future fracture. A secondary objective was to understand if those who report two or more prior fractures differ from those reporting one prior fracture. METHODS: This cohort study included fragility fracture patients aged 50 + enrolled in the Ontario FLS between July 2017 and September 2019. Patients with versus those without prior fractures were compared on age, sex, index fracture site, biological parents' history of hip fracture, current fracture due to a fall, history of feeling unsteady when walking, history of falls in the past year, smoking, oral steroid use, and comorbid chronic conditions. Pearson's chi-square, Fischer's exact, and analysis of variance tests were used to assess differences. RESULTS: Among 14,454 patients, 16.8% (n = 2428) reported a history of one or more prior fractures after the age of 40. They were significantly more likely to be older, female, with a higher number of comorbidities, with greater incidence of falls, and feel unsteady when walking. Compared to those with one prior fracture, patients with greater than one prior fracture were more likely to report falls in the past year and feel unsteady when walking. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that FLS fragility fracture patients who had sustained prior fragility fracture are an important high-risk subgroup that warrants further attention within FLS priority pathways in order to disrupt their fragility fracture cycle.

Patients 80 + have similar medication initiation rates to those aged 50-79 in Ontario FLS.

Among individuals presenting to an Ontario FLS, we compared bone active medication initiation rates of patients 80 years and older with those 50-79 years old. After accounting for fracture risk status, there was no statistically significant difference in medication initiation rates between the two age groups INTRODUCTION: A Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) offers post-fracture services to individuals over the age of 50 years and could potentially address age inequities in pharmacotherapy often observed for older adults. Among individuals presenting to an Ontario FLS and classified as being at high risk for future fracture, our objective was to compare bone active medication initiation rates of patients 80 years and older with those 50-79 years old. METHODS: In 39 FLS fracture clinics across Ontario, Canada, fracture prevention coordinators identified, assessed, and facilitated the referral of eligible patients for bone densitometry, fracture risk assessment, and implementation of pharmacotherapy in patients classified as high risk for future fracture. Variables assessed at baseline included age, sex, marital status, living location, fracture location, history of previous fracture, parent's history of hip fracture, history of falls, and fracture risk status. At 6 months, bone active medication initiation was assessed in patients classified as high risk for future fracture. The Chi-square test of independence was used to compare medication initiation rates between patients 80 + and those 50-79 years old. RESULTS: Our sample size consisted of 808 patients aged 50-79 years and 346 aged 80 + years. After accounting for fracture risk status, there was no statistically significant difference in medication initiation rates of patients 50-79 and 80 + years old (76.9% versus 73.7%, p = 0.251). CONCLUSION: A systematic approach to identifying patients at high risk for future fracture and tailoring treatment recommendations to these patients appeared to eliminate differences in treatment initiation rates based on older age.

Few fragility fracture patients perceive that their bone health is affected by their comorbidities and medications.

We examined fragility fracture patients' perceptions of associations between bone health and other chronic conditions and medications. Awareness of the associations between bone health and these conditions and medications was low. Providers should increase patients' awareness of these associations in order to minimize the risk of future fracture. INTRODUCTION: Among patients with a fragility fracture presenting with at least one other chronic health condition, we examined (1) perceptions of the association between bone health and their other health conditions, and (2) perceptions of the association between bone health and prescribed medications taken for other health conditions. METHODS: We identified fragility fracture patients presenting to a Canadian urban fracture clinic with at least one self-reported chronic health condition (in addition to bone fragility). In-depth interviews, 60-90 min in duration, were conducted. Our qualitative methodology was informed by saliency analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 patients (21 females, 5 males) aged 45 to 84 years old. Participants were taking 1-13 medications each and presented with a variety of comorbidities (range 1-7). All participants described at least one condition or medication they were currently taking for which there existed evidence of a negative effect on bone health (increased risk of fracture, bone loss, falling). Two participants perceived a correct association between their other health conditions and compromised bone health, and four participants perceived a correct association between their medications and compromised bone health. CONCLUSION: All patients reported a chronic health condition and/or were taking at least one medication that potentially compromised their bone health. Patient awareness of the association between bone health and other health conditions and prescribed medications was low. Health care providers should increase patients' awareness of the bone health significance of their chronic conditions and medications in order to minimize the risk of future fracture.

Patients do not have a consistent understanding of high risk for future fracture: a qualitative study of patients from a post-fracture secondary prevention program.

UNLABELLED: We examined fracture patients' understanding of "high" fracture risk after they were screened through a post-fracture secondary prevention program and educated about their risk verbally, numerically, and graphically. Our findings suggest that messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and need to be modified to better suit patients' needs. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to examine fracture patients' understanding of high risk for future fracture. METHODS: We conducted an in-depth qualitative study in patients who were high risk for future fracture. Patients were screened through the Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program where they were educated about fracture risk: verbally told they were "high risk" for future fracture, given a numerical prompt that they had a >20 % chance of future fracture over the next 10 years, and given a visual graph highlighting the "high risk" segment. This information about fracture risk was also relayed to patients' primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. Participants were interviewed at baseline (within six months of fracture) and follow-up (after visit with a PCP and/or specialist) and asked to recall their understanding of risk and whether it applied to them. RESULTS: We recruited 27 patients (20 females, 7 males) aged 51-87 years old. Fractures were sustained at the wrist (n = 7), hip (n = 7), vertebrae (n = 2), and multiple or other locations (n = 11). While most participants recalled they had been labeled as "high risk" (verbal cue), most were unable to correctly recall the other elements of risk (numerical, graphical). Further, approximately half of the patients who recalled they were high risk did not believe that high risk applied, or had meaning, to them. Participants also had difficulty explaining what they were at risk for. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that health care providers' messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and that these messages need to be modified to better suit patients' needs.

Non-pharmacological strategies used by patients at high risk for future fracture to manage fracture risk--a qualitative study.

UNLABELLED: We examined patients' self-management of bone health and fracture risk, particularly behaviors other than medication use and seeking diagnostic testing. Awareness of fracture risk was accompanied by positive lifestyle changes in participants' lives such as being careful. Future research should evaluate how lifestyle changes mitigate fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: We examined patients' understanding of bone health and self-management decisions regarding bone health and fracture risk, particularly behaviors other than medication use and seeking diagnostic testing. METHODS: A phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. English-speaking patients, 65+ years old, who were "high risk" for future fracture and prescribed pharmacotherapy after being screened through a post-fracture osteoporosis initiative were eligible. Patients were interviewed for 1-2 h and were asked to discuss perceptions of bone health status (bone densitometry results and perceived fracture risk), recommendations received for bone health, and lifestyle changes since their most recent fracture. We analyzed the data guided by Giorgi's methodology. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 fracture patients (6 males and 15 females), aged 65 to 88 years old. With the exception of one participant, all participants appeared to understand that they had low bone mass and were at risk of sustaining another fracture. Most participants (n = 20) were predominantly concerned about being careful, and they focused their responses on personal and environmental factors that they perceived to be modifiable. Participants also spoke about strategies to manage their bone health such as exercise, having a healthy diet and taking supplements, and using aids and devices. Non-pharmacological strategies used by patients appeared to be independent of current use of pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of fracture risk was accompanied by a number of positive lifestyle changes in participants' lives such as being careful and engaging in exercise. Future research needs to evaluate how lifestyle changes such as being careful mitigate fracture risk.

Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture--a new understanding based on fracture patients' communication.

UNLABELLED: We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not connect fractures to bone health. The term "fragility" fracture was a misnomer to patients who perceived the event as physically and emotionally traumatic. Improved communication about such fractures could facilitate awareness of bone health. INTRODUCTION: We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not perceive the connection between their fracture and low bone mass. METHODS: A descriptive phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. During face-to-face interviews, the participants described the experience of their fracture in detail and the circumstances surrounding the fracture. Data analysis was guided by Giorgi's methodology. English-speaking male and female patients aged 65+ years and "high" risk for future fracture were eligible and screened for osteoporosis through an established screening program at an urban teaching hospital. RESULTS: We recruited 30 participants (9 males, 21 females), aged 65-88, who presented with a hip (n = 11), wrist (n = 11), shoulder (n = 6), or other (n = 2) fracture. Ten of the 30 fractures occurred inside the home and the remaining fractures occurred outside the home. Sustaining a fragility fracture was perceived as a traumatic event, both physically and emotionally. In general, participants used forceful, action-oriented words and referred to hard surfaces to describe the experience. Explanations for the fracture, other than bone quality, were often reported, especially that falls were "freak" or "fluke" events. Patients who sustained a fracture under more mundane circumstances seemed more likely to perceive a connection between the fracture and their bone health. CONCLUSIONS: The term fragility fracture was a misnomer for many older adults. By reexamining how this term is communicated to fracture patients, health care providers may better facilitate patients' awareness of bone health.

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 program with a dedicated coordinator improved chart documentation of osteoporosis after fragility fracture.

UNLABELLED: Post-fracture osteoporosis care is becoming recognized as essential by the orthopaedic community, but programs and systems are needed to ensure that this care is routinely provided. Chart documentation related to OP, which is valuable for continuity of care, increased significantly following establishment of an osteoporosis program with a dedicated coordinator. INTRODUCTION: Post-fracture osteoporosis (OP) care has been repeatedly reported to be inadequate. Through a coordinator-based program, we addressed OP care for more than 95% of fragility fracture patients (1), but we do not know if documentation by orthopaedic surgeons improved. The literature suggests that chart documentation, though underestimating true care, is an indicator of the salient aspects of a condition. Thus chart documentation could be used to reflect an emerging recognition of OP as an important issue to be addressed in the orthopaedic management of the fragility fracture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if there was an increased documentation of OP by orthopaedic surgeons before and after introduction of a coordinator-based program where the coordinator was known to address OP in 95% of cases. METHODS: Chart audits were conducted to quantify OP documentation for patients treated after program initiation compared with age-, sex-, and fracture type-matched controls who presented prior to program implementation. Documentation rates were compared using chi(2) tests. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with OP-related documentation. RESULTS: After program implementation, chart documentation of OP diagnosis (unadjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.4), of referral for OP follow-up (unadjusted OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.5-6.1), and of initiation of OP management (unadjusted OR 8.2, 95% CI 4.0-16.5) by orthopaedic surgeons was more likely. Being in the post-implementation group was stronger than any patient factors in predicting OP charting. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians working in a clinic with a coordinator-based OP program were more likely to document OP-related care in patients' medical charts. We believe this in turn reflected increased attention to OP by physicians in the orthopaedic management of fragility fractures.

Practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: a systematic review.

Fragility fractures are a strong indicator of underlying osteoporosis (OP). With the risk of future fracture being increased 1.5- to 9.5-fold following a fragility fracture, the diagnosis and treatment of OP in men and women with fragility fractures provides the opportunity to prevent future fragility fractures. This review describes the current status of practice in investigation and diagnosis of OP in men and women with fragility fractures, the rates and types of postfracture treatment in patients with fragility fractures and OP, interventions undertaken in this population, and the barriers to OP identification and treatment. A literature search performed in Medline, Healthstar, CINAHL, EMBASE, PreMedline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified 37 studies on OP diagnosis, treatment, and interventions. The studies varied in design methodology, study facilities, types of fractures, and pharmacological treatments. Some studies revealed that no patients with fragility fractures received investigation or treatment for underlying OP. Investigation of OP by bone mineral density was low: 14 of 16 studies reported investigation of less than 32% of patients. Investigation by bone mineral density resulted in high rates of OP diagnosis (35-100%), but only moderate use of calcium and vitamin D (8-62%, median 18%) and bisphosphates (0.5-38%) in patients investigated postfracture. Studies on barriers to OP identification and treatment focused on various groups of health practitioners. Barriers included the cost of therapies, time and cost of resources for diagnosis, concerns about medications, and the lack of clarity regarding the responsibility to undertake this care.