An osteoporosis knowledge assessment instrument - development and validation.

INTRODUCTION: The consequences of osteoporotic fractures are extremely detrimental to the individual as well as to society. Adopting effective preventative measures is a top public health priority.

[Chinese expert consensus on treatment of osteoporotic fractures with teriparatide (2024 edition)].

Osteoporotic fracture is the most serious complication of osteoporosis, which is a special type of pathologic fracture of the skeleton that occurs because of osteoporosis. It is characterized by delayed fracture healing, high risk of re-fracture, high rate of disability and death, difficulty in treatment and long treatment time, and re-fracture has a"cascade effect". Guidelines in different countries recommend that patients with osteoporotic fractures and those at very high risk of fracture should consider anabolic agents as first treatment choice. Teriparatide is the only anabolic agent approved by National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), and it has the clinical efficacy of improving fracture healing, reducing the risk of re-fracture, and improving bone microstructure in the treatment of osteoporotic fracture. Due to deficiencies in the current standardization of clinical use of teriparatide, Committee of Accelerated Rehabilitation After Osteoporotic Fractures of China Association of Rehabilitation Technology Transformation and Promotion, Bone and Joint Group of Chinese Society of Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Research and Osteoporosis Working Committee of Chinese Association of Orthopedic Surgeons developed this consensus. The development of this consensus follows the modified Delphi method and forms 8 evidence-based medical recommendations, aiming to propose methods and precautions for standardizing the application of teriparatide, and to emphasize the importance of teriparatide application for the treatment of patients with osteoporotic fracture.

Secondary fracture prevention in Spanish primary care: results of the PREFRAOS Study.

This study demonstrated a large treatment gap in elderly subjects experiencing fragility fracture in Spanish primary care, a low treatment persistence among subjects who do receive treatment, and more than one-quarter having no follow-up visits post-fracture. These data highlight the need to improve secondary fracture prevention in primary care. PURPOSE: To describe osteoporosis (OP) treatment patterns and follow-up in subjects with fragility fracture seen in Spanish primary care (PC). METHODS: This observational, retrospective chart review included subjects aged ≥ 70 years listed in the centers' records (November 2018 to March 2020), with ≥ 1 fragility fracture and prior consultation for any reason; subjects who had participated in another study were excluded. Outcomes included OP treatments and follow-up visits post-fragility fracture. RESULTS: Of 665 subjects included, most (87%) were women; overall mean (SD) age, 82 years. Fewer than two thirds (61%) had received any prior OP treatment (women, 65%; men, 38%); of these, 38% had received > 1 treatment (women, 25%; men, 13%). Among treated subjects, the most frequent first-line treatments were alendronate (43%) and RANKL inhibitor denosumab (22%), with a higher discontinuation rate and shorter treatment duration observed for alendronate (discontinuation, 42% vs 16%; median treatment duration, 2.5 vs 2.1 years). Over one-quarter (26%) of subjects had no follow-up visits post-fragility fracture, with this gap higher in women than men (35% versus 25%). The most common schedule of follow-up visits was yearly (43% of subjects with a fragility fracture), followed by half-yearly (17%) and biennial (10%), with a similar trend in men and women. Most OP treatments were prescribed by PC physicians, other than teriparatide and zoledronate. CONCLUSIONS: Across Spanish PC, we observed a large gap in the treatment and follow-up of elderly subjects experiencing a fragility fracture. Our data highlights the urgent need to improve secondary fracture prevention in PC.

Secondary osteoporosis prevention: three-year outcomes from a Fracture Liaison Service in elderly hip fracture patients.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are the most serious fragility fractures due to their associated disability, higher hospitalization costs and high mortality rates. Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) programs have enhanced the management of osteoporosis-related fractures and have shown their clinical effectiveness. AIMS: To analyze the effect of the implementation of a FLS model of care over the survival and mortality rates following a hip fracture. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study on patients over 60 years of age who suffered a hip fracture before and after the implementation of the FLS in our center (between January 2016 and December 2019). Patients were followed for three years after the index date. Mortality, complications and refracture rates were compared between the two groups using a Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: A total of 1366 patients were included in this study (353 before FLS implementation and 1013 after FLS implementation). Anti-osteoporotic drugs were more frequently prescribed after FLS implementation (79.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.01) and there was an increase in adherence to treatment (51.7% vs 30.2%; p < 0.01). A total of 413 (40.8%) patients after FLS implementation and 141 (39.9%) individuals before (p = 0.47) died during the three-years follow-up period. A second fracture occurred in 101 (10.0%) patients after FLS implementation and 37 (10.5%) individuals before (p = 0.78). Patients after the implementation of the FLS protocol had a lower all cause one-year mortality [adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.74 (0.57-0.94)] and a decreased risk of suffering a second osteoporotic fracture [adjusted HR 0.54 (0.39-0.75) in males and adjusted HR 0.46 (0.30-0.71) in females]. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a FLS protocol was associated with a lower all-cause one-year mortality rate and a higher survivorship in elderly hip fracture patients. However, no three-year mortality rate differences were observed between the two groups. We also found a reduction in the complication and second-fracture rates.

Effectiveness of teriparatide in in improving healing rates and bone-turnover markers of osteoporotic hip fracture: a meta-analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of subcutaneous teriparatide therapy on fracture healing rate and change in bone mass density in osteoporotic hip fractures. METHODS: The meta-analysis was done from September to December 2022, and comprised literature search on Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from the establishment of the respective database till December 2022. The relevant journals of the library of Macao University of Science and Technology, China, were manually searched for randomised controlled trials of teriparatide in the treatment of osteoporotic hip fractures. The shortlisted studies were subjectd to Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Jadad Rating Scale. Meta-analysis was done using the RevMan 5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration Network. Fracture healing rate and bone mineral density were the primary outcome measures, while mortality, adverse events, malformations, complications, subsequent fractures, timed-up-and-go test, visual analogue scale score, and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide were the secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 1,094 articles retrieved, 8(0.7%) randomised controlled trials were analysed. There were 744 patients; 372(50%) in the teriparatide group and 372(50%) in the control group. Fracture healing rate was not significantly different (p=0.82), while bone mineral density was significantly different between the groups (p<0.001). Mortality, adverse events, deformity, and complications were not significantly different (p>0.05), while subsequent fractures, timed-up-and-go score, visual analogue scale score and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide were significantly different between the groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: The literature did not support teriparatide's ability to improve the healing rate of osteoporotic hip fractures, or to reduce mortality, adverse events, malformations, and complications. In addition, teriparatide could increase bone mineral density of osteoporotic hip fractures and the procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide value, alleviate hip pain, and reduce subsequent fracture rates. This trial is registered with PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022379832.

[Pharmacolgic osteoporosis treatment of nursing home residents]. / Medikamentöse Osteoporosetherapie bei Altersheimbewohner/-innen.

INTRODUCTION: Fragility fractures in older people are common and are often associated with nursing home admission in frail people. Only few institutionalized residents with documented osteoporosis receive pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment. Studies demonstrating the benefit of osteoporosis drug therapy in this multimorbid and vulnerable population are lacking.

[Osteoporosis - implications of the new guidelines in practice]. / Osteoporose ­ Implikation der neuen Leitlinie in die Praxis.

In September 2023, the guideline on the prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men was published as a completely revised guideline. The implications for practice include a change in the justifying indication for performing a bone density measurement, the time interval over which the fracture risk is determined, the level and number of therapy thresholds, and the recommendations for the therapeutic approach that are adapted to the individual fracture risk present. Risk assessment for the prediction of spine and hip fractures is essential in the context of osteoporosis diagnostics. In addition to age and gender, there are a total of 33 risk factors to determine the individual risk of fracture. Much more attention is paid to the assessment of the risk of falls and, depending on the result, combined with recommendations for muscle training and protein intake from the age of 65. Risk indicators must also be taken into account when determining the indication for osteoporosis diagnosis, as well as the risk factors of the imminent risk of fracture. The indication for baseline diagnostics has changed from the >20% 10-year fracture risk to diagnostics in postmenopausal women and in men aged 50 years and older, depending on the fracture risk factor profile. This eliminates a specific fracture risk threshold for basic diagnostics. Thus, in the young patient group (50-60 years), the risk factors considered medically relevant for the indication for osteoporosis diagnosis must be taken into account. New thresholds as an indication for initiating therapy is the determination of fracture risk using a risk calculator over 3 years instead of 10 years. The indication for drug therapy should be based on the threshold values of the DVO risk model. The data clearly suggests a significantly faster and more effective fracture risk-reducing effect of anabolic therapy. This is recommended in the first sequence in cases of a very high risk of fracture from 10%/3 years with osteoanabolic active substances (teriparatide or romosozumab). Such a therapy sequence should be initiated directly and not delayed due to upcoming dental procedures. Follow-up therapy to consolidate the reduction of fracture risk should be chosen individually.

Surgical Considerations for Osteoporosis, Osteopenia, and Vitamin D Deficiency in Upper Extremity Surgery.

Fragility fractures as a result of osteoporosis, osteopenia, or vitamin D deficiency are some of the most common injuries encountered in orthopedics and require careful consideration when determining the appropriate management and treatment options. A thorough perioperative evaluation can identify causes of low bone mineral density allowing for initiation of appropriate therapy. Surgical treatment of these fractures can be difficult, and techniques should be employed to ensure stable fixation. It is important to understand the potential pitfalls associated with treatment of fragility fractures to prevent avoidable complications. Postoperative management is key to preventing future injuries in this unique patient population.

Local Application of Tanshinone IIA protects mesenchymal stem cells from apoptosis and promotes fracture healing in ovariectomized mice.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients suffering from osteoporotic fractures are more susceptible to delayed union or nonunion, and their bodies then are in a state of low-grade chronic inflammation with decreased antioxidant capacity. Tanshinone IIA is widely used in treating cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in China and has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects. We aimed to observe the antioxidant effects of Tanshinone IIA on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which play important roles in bone repair, and the effects of local application of Tanshinone IIA using an injectable biodegradable hydrogel on osteoporotic fracture healing. METHODS: MSCs were pretreated with or without different concentrations of Tanshinone IIA followed by H2O2 treatment. Ovariectomized (OVX) C57BL/6 mice received a mid-shaft transverse osteotomy fracture on the left tibia, and Tanshinone IIA was applied to the fracture site using an injectable hydrogel. RESULTS: Tanshinone IIA pretreatment promoted the expression of nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 and antioxidant enzymes, and inhibited H2O2-induced reactive oxygen species accumulation in MSCs. Furthermore, Tanshinone IIA reversed H2O2-induced apoptosis and decrease in osteogenic differentiation in MSCs. After 4 weeks of treatment with Tanshinone IIA in OVX mice, the bone mineral density of the callus was significantly increased and the biomechanical properties of the healed tibias were improved. Cell apoptosis was decreased and Nrf2 expression was increased in the early stage of callus formation. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these results indicate that Tanshinone IIA can activate antioxidant enzymes to protect MSCs from H2O2-induced cell apoptosis and osteogenic differentiation inhibition. Local application of Tanshinone IIA accelerates fracture healing in ovariectomized mice.

A novel case-finding strategy based on artificial intelligence for the systematic identification and management of individuals with osteoporosis or at varying risk of fragility fracture.

An artificial intelligence-based case-finding strategy has been developed to systematically identify individuals with osteoporosis or at varying risk of fragility fracture. This strategy has the potential to close the critical care gap in osteoporosis treatment in primary care, thereby lessening the societal burden imposed by fragility fractures. BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic fractures represent a major cause of morbidity and, in older adults, a precursor of disability, loss of independence, poor quality of life and premature death. Despite the detrimental health impact, osteoporosis remains largely underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Subjects at risk for osteoporosis-related fractures are identified either via organised screening or case finding. In the absence of a population-based screening policy, subjects at high risk of fragility fractures are opportunistically identified when a fracture occurs or because of other clinical risk factors (CRFs) for osteoporotic fracture and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). PURPOSE: This paper describes the development of a novel case-finding strategy, named Osteoporosis Diagnostic and Therapeutic Pathway (ODTP), which enables to identify subjects with osteoporosis or at varying risk of fragility fracture. This strategy is based on a specifically designed software tool, named "Bone Fragility Query" (BFQ), which analyses the electronic health record (EHR) databases of General Practitioners (GPs) to systematically identify individuals who should be prescribed DXA-BMD measurement, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and anti-osteoporosis medications (AOM). CONCLUSIONS: The ODTP through BFQ tool is a feasible, convenient and time-saving osteoporosis model of care for GPs during routine clinical practice. It enables GPs to shift their focus from what to do (clinical guidelines) to how to do it in the primary health care setting. It also allows a systematic approach to primary and secondary prevention of fragility fractures, thereby overcoming clinical inertia and contributing to closing the gap between evidence and practice for the management of osteoporosis in primary care.

Three-year follow-up of a novel orthopedic ward fracture liaison services (OWFLS) model.

OBJECTIVE: We established an orthopedic ward fracture liaison services (OWFLS) model and evaluated its role in improving detection rates of bone metabolic markers, treatment rates, and long-term treatability. METHODS: This observational retrospective cohort study included 120 patients aged >50 years hospitalized for primary osteoporotic fracture from January 2018 to January 2019 (group A: not included in OWFLS). Group B (included in OWFLS) comprised 120 patients from February 2019 to February 2020. We compared rates of bone metabolic index testing, treatment, and adherence; symptomatic improvement; and recurrent fracture between groups. RESULTS: Rates of bone metabolism index testing (50% vs. 0%) and medication use (94.2% vs. 64.2%) were significantly higher after OWFLS implementation. There was no significant difference in adherence rates at 3 months between groups (97.3% vs. 93.5%). Adherence rates at 1 and 3 years were better in group B than A (73.5% vs. 51.9%; 57.5% vs. 26%, respectively). Recurrence of bone pain at 1 and 3 years was significantly lower in group B than A (20.4% vs. 46.8%; 45.1% vs. 76.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: OWFLS improved the detection rate of bone metabolism indicators, treatment rate, and patient adherence and reduced recurrence of bone pain. OWFLS may be suitable for settings lacking human resources.

Osteoporotic quality of life, self-efficacy, and fracture protection behaviors in postmenopausal women.

It is important for postmenopausal women to acquire bone health protective behaviors to protect them from fractures. For this reason, it is necessary to evaluate bone health during menopause and to inform women. PURPOSE: This study was conducted to examine osteoporotic fracture protection behaviors, quality of life, and self-efficacy in postmenopausal women. METHODS: In the study, the data were evaluated with the socio-demographic data form, Osteoporotic Fracture Protection Scale, Osteoporosis Self-Efficacy-Efficacy Scale, European Osteoporosis Foundation Quality of Life Questionnaire-41, which includes introductory information on socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: It was determined that the postmenopausal women included in our study were between the ages of 45-92; more than half of them had chronic diseases; their average BMI was 29; and their DEXA score was - 3.00 ± 0.41. Among the people included in our study, those with a history of fractures had lower self-efficacy scores. It was determined that the fracture prevention scale scores of the participants were above the average, and the average of the osteoporosis-related quality of life score was high. In addition, it was determined that there was a strong positive correlation between self-efficacy and fracture prevention scale. CONCLUSION: It is important to determine behaviors to prevent osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women, to raise the necessary awareness and to inform patients about the precautions to be taken. It is thought that it will increase patients' quality of life by increasing their disease-related self-efficacy. Therefore, there is a need for research on providing education to op patients and examining the results.

Osteoporotic fracture risk in women with breast cancer treated with aromatase inhibitors: a health insurance claims database study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for estrogen receptor-dependent breast cancer may expose patients to an increased osteoporosis risk. This study was performed to estimate fracture risk in women with breast cancer to whom AIs were prescribed in Japan. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Women with breast cancer prescribed AIs over a 12-month period were identified and matched to women not prescribed AIs using a propensity score. Fracture rates were estimated by a cumulative incidence function and compared using a cause-specific Cox hazard model. The proportion of women undergoing bone density tests was retrieved. RESULTS: For all fractures sites combined, cumulative fracture incidence at 10 years was 0.19 [95%CI: 0.16-0.22] in women prescribed AIs and 0.18 [95%CI: 0.15-0.21] without AIs. AI prescription was not associated with any changes in risk (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.08 [95%CI: 0.99-1.17] p = 0.08). Women prescribed AI more frequently underwent bone density testing (31.9% [95% CI: 31.2%; 32.6%] versus 2.2% [95% CI: 2.0%; 2.4%]). CONCLUSIONS: The anticipated association between AI exposure and osteoporotic fracture risk in Japanese women with breast cancer was not seen clearly.

Survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association.

A survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association conducted in 2022 found considerable variation in care across the region. A Call to Action is proposed to improve acute care, rehabilitation and secondary fracture prevention across Asia Pacific. PURPOSE: Fragility fractures impose a substantial burden on older people and their families, healthcare systems and national economies. The current incidence of hip and other fragility fractures across the Asia Pacific region is enormous and set to escalate rapidly in the coming decades. This publication describes findings of a survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association (APOA) conducted in 2022. METHODS: The survey was developed as a collaboration between the Asia Pacific Osteoporosis and Fragility Fracture Society and the Asia Pacific Fragility Fracture Alliance, and included questions relating to aspects of care upon presentation, during surgery and mobilisation, secondary fracture prevention, and access to specific services. RESULTS: In total, 521 APOA members completed the survey and marked variation in delivery of care was evident. Notable findings included: Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated that analgesia was routinely initiated in transit (by paramedics) or within 30 minutes of arrival in the Emergency Department. One-quarter of respondents stated that more than 80% of their patients underwent surgery within 48 hours of admission. One-third of respondents considered non-hip, non-vertebral fractures to merit assessment of future fracture risk. One-third of respondents reported the presence of an Orthogeriatric Service in their hospital, and less than a quarter reported the presence of a Fracture Liaison Service. CONCLUSION: A Call to Action for all National Orthopaedic Associations affiliated with APOA is proposed to improve the care of fragility fracture patients across the region.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.

Background: Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives: 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods: The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates. Results: Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting. Conclusions: Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs. Future work: Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting. Limitations: Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bisphosphonates are drug treatments commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is the most used and is taken by mouth, weekly at a specific time of the week, which can be challenging. Less than one in four people continue this treatment beyond 2 years. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which vary in frequency and how they are administered. The most acceptable and best value-for-money regimen is unclear. Our aim was to determine how effective alternative bisphosphonates are compared to alendronate at preventing fractures and whether reduction in fracture risk was achieved at a reasonable financial cost, but acceptable to patients. The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: a review of the published evidence on patients' and doctors' views, experiences and preferences regarding different bisphosphonate treatment regimens, followed by interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Stage 1B: an update of an existing study on how effective bisphosphonates are in preventing fragility fractures caused by osteoporosis and whether they are good value for money. Stage 2: identification of questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonate treatments. Taking bisphosphonate medication often involves quite a lot of effort by patients, particularly when taking alendronate tablets. A yearly infusion of zoledronate treatment was more acceptable, easier to engage with and the most effective treatment compared to alendronate. However, the cost of administering zoledronate in hospital made alendronate better value for money. Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk of fracture, but 'continuing with treatment', particularly alendronate tablets, remains a challenge. A yearly infusion of zoledronate offers an acceptable and effective treatment, but further research is needed to support patients and healthcare professionals in making decisions about the various treatments, benefits and cost savings of administering zoledronate outside of hospital and in the community.