Barriers and Expectations for Patients in Post-Osteoporotic Fracture Care in France: The EFFEL Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantify the relative importance of barriers to better secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures and of care expectations expressed by patients with osteoporotic fractures in France. METHODS: A qualitative exploration of potential barriers to care and expectations was undertaken through a systematic literature review and in-depth patients interviews. A list of 21 barriers and 21 expectations was identified. These were presented to 324 subjects with osteoporotic fractures, identified in a representative sample of the French population, in the form of best-worst scaling questionnaires. Patients rated the relative importance of the attributes, and arithmetic mean importance scores were calculated and ranked. A Bayesian hierarchical model was also performed to generate a relative importance score. Latent class analysis was performed to identify potential subgroups of patients with different response profiles. RESULTS: A total of 7 barriers were rated as the most important, relating to awareness of osteoporosis and coordination of care. The highest-ranked barrier, "my fracture is not related to osteoporosis," was significantly more important than all the others (mean importance score 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.56). A similar ranking of attributes was obtained with both the arithmetic and the Bayesian approach. For expectations, no clear hierarchy of attributes was identified. Latent class analysis discriminated 3 classes of respondents with significant differences in response profiles (the educated environmentalists, the unaware, and the victims of the system). CONCLUSIONS: Better quality of care of osteoporosis and effective secondary fracture prevention will require improvements in patient education, training of healthcare professionals, and coordination of care.

Real-world care for individuals aged over fifty with fractures in France: Evidence for a wide care gap-The EPIFRACT Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the care trajectories of adults aged ≥50 years with fragility fractures in France. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 15,000 individuals aged ≥50 years extracted from a representative panel of the French population (METASKOPE) in April-May 2018. Respondents experiencing a single fragility fracture in the previous three years constituted the study population. Information was collected regarding diagnosis, hospitalisations, physician visits and treatment related to the fractures. RESULTS: 13,914 participants returned a questionnaire (92.8%), of whom 436 reported a single fragility fracture. Their mean age was 68.7±10.3 years. 11.9% of this sample had undergone bone densitometry (DXA) prior to the fracture and 11.9% had received a diagnostic of osteoporosis. Following the fracture, a further 17.4% underwent DXA and 8.5% were diagnosed with osteoporosis. 74.3% of fractures were initially managed in an emergency department and 29.6% led to immediate hospitalisation. Prior to fracture, 3.4% received a specific anti-osteoporotic treatment, 10.1% vitamin D and 6.4% calcium supplementation. After the fracture, these figures rose to 10.8%, 26.8% and 19.0% respectively. 86.2% participants made at least one follow-up visit to a physician. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of DXA screening following fragility fractures in subjects over fifty is very low. Most patients with fragility fractures did not receive a diagnosis of osteoporosis. The proportion of patients treated with a specific anti-osteoporotic treatment after a fracture is low even though around half consulted their general practitioner after the fracture. Practice guidelines are thus not being adhered to in everyday clinical practice in France.

Fragility fractures in France: epidemiology, characteristics and quality of life (the EPIFRACT study).

Between 1 and 2% of people aged 50 years and over living at home in France are likely to experience a fragility fracture each year. Three-quarters of these individuals are not diagnosed with osteoporosis and lose the opportunity for appropriate care. PURPOSE: To estimate the incidence of fragility fractures in France and to describe the characteristics of individuals with such fractures and of their fractures. METHODS: In April-May 2018, a postal survey was performed in France targeting a representative panel of 15,000 individuals aged ≥ 50 years, who were invited to complete a questionnaire. If they reported experiencing a fracture in the previous 3 years, they were asked to provide information on demographics, fracture type, risk factors for fractures and osteoporosis diagnosis. Only fragility fractures were considered, and these were classified as major (associated with increased mortality) or minor, based on the fracture site. RESULTS: Around 13,914 panellists returned an exploitable questionnaire (92.8%). About 425 participants reported ≥ 1 fragility fracture (453 fractures), corresponding to a 12-month incidence rate of 1.4% [95%CI: 1.2, 1.6]. Incidence was higher in women (1.99% [1.87, 2.05]) than in men (0.69% [0.38, 0.86]) and increased with age. Around 157 fractures (34.6%) were classified as major. Participants reporting major fractures were older than those reporting minor fractures (mean age: 72.6 ± 11.3 vs 67.1 ± 10.6) and more likely to report previous corticosteroid use (odds ratio: 1.90 [95%CI: 1.13, 3.18]). No other patient characteristic was associated with fracture severity. About 117 participants with fractures (27.5%) had undergone bone densitometry, and 97 (22.8%) declared having received a diagnosis of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Around 340,000 people aged ≥ 50 years living at home in France are estimated to experience osteoporotic fractures each year. However, > 75% of panellists reporting fractures were never diagnosed with osteoporosis and thus did not have the opportunity to receive appropriate care.

Patient-Reported Outcome in Two Chronic Diseases: A Comparison of Quality of Life and Response Profiles in Severe Migraine and Severe Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine and asthma are two frequent, disabling, chronic disorders with a major impact on patient well-being. The objectives of this study were to compare subjective well-being between patients with severe forms of migraine or asthma using a panel of PROs. METHODS: Adult patients were recruited during routine consultations with chest physicians or neurologists. Patients with severe migraine (reporting headaches on ≥8 days/month and having failed ≥2 prophylactic treatments) and patients with severe asthma (according to the 2017 GINA definition: requiring Step 4 or 5 treatment or presenting uncontrolled symptoms) were eligible. Each patient completed the EuroQol Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD). Patients with severe migraine the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and those with severe asthma completed the Asthma Control Test (ACT). RESULTS: 249 patients with severe migraine and 96 with severe asthma were enrolled. Mean EQ-5D-5L utility scores were significantly higher in the severe migraine group than in the severe asthma group (0.75±0.25 vs 0.68±0.26; p<0.01). Low EQ-5D-5L utility scores were associated with frequent (≥15 headache days/month) or disabling (HIT-6 score ≥60) headaches and with poor asthma control. Patients with severe migraine more frequently presented a HAD depression score ≥11 (23.0% in severe migraine; 7.5% in severe asthma; p<0.01), whereas those with severe asthma more frequently reported problems with mobility, self-care and usual activities. Absenteeism (percent worktime missed) was similar in both groups (severe migraine: 9.0%±19.1%; severe asthma: 13.8%±22.9%) but work impairment was higher in the severe migraine group (44.3% vs 28.4%; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Quality of life, work activity and psychological distress are all deteriorated in both severe migraine and severe asthma. Different aspects are affected in the two diseases: a greater impact on psychological aspects in severe migraine and a greater impact on physical aspects in severe asthma.