Impact of a centralized osteoporosis coordinator on post-fracture osteoporosis management: a cluster randomized trial

SUMMARY: We conducted a cluster randomized trial evaluating the effect of a centralized coordinator who identifies and follows up with fracture patients and their primary care physicians about osteoporosis. Compared with controls, intervention patients were five times more likely to receive BMD testing and two times more likely to receive appropriate management. INTRODUCTION: To determine if a centralized coordinator who follows up with fracture patients and their primary care physicians by telephone and mail (intervention) will increase the proportion of patients who receive appropriate post-fracture osteoporosis management, compared to simple fall prevention advice (attention control). METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in small community hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada. Hospitals that treated between 60 and 340 fracture patients per year were eligible. Patients 40 years and older presenting with a low trauma fracture were identified from Emergency Department records and enrolled in the trial. The primary outcome was ‘appropriate’ management, defined as a normal bone mineral density (BMD) test or taking osteoporosis medications. RESULTS: Thirty-six hospitals were randomized to either intervention or control and 130 intervention and 137 control subjects completed the study. The mean age of participants was 65 ± 12 years and 69% were female. The intervention increased the proportion of patients who received appropriate management within 6 months of fracture; 45% in the intervention group compared with 26% in the control group (absolute difference of 19%; adjusted OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3–4.1). The proportion who had a BMD test scheduled or performed was much higher with 57% of intervention patients compared with 21% of controls (absolute difference of 36%; adjusted OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 3.0–7.0). CONCLUSIONS: A centralized osteoporosis coordinator is effective in improving the quality of osteoporosis care in smaller communities that do not have on-site coordinators or direct access to osteoporosis specialists

The Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW): rationale and study design

SUMMARY: The Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW) is a prospective cohort study involving 723 physicians and 60,393 women subjects >or=55 years. The data will provide insights into the management of fracture risk in older women over 5 years, patient experience with prevention and treatment, and distribution of risk among older women on an international basis. INTRODUCTION: Data from cohort studies describing the distribution of osteoporosis-related fractures and risk factors are not directly comparable and do not compare regional differences in patterns of patient management and fracture outcomes. METHODS: The GLOW is a prospective, multinational, observational cohort study. Practices typical of each region were identified through primary care networks organized for administrative, research, or educational purposes. Noninstitutionalized patients visiting each practice within the previous 2 years were eligible. Self-administered questionnaires were mailed, with 2:1 oversampling of women >or=65 years. Follow-up questionnaires will be sent at 12-month intervals for 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 723 physicians at 17 sites in ten countries agreed to participate. Baseline surveys were mailed (October 2006 to February 2008) to 140,416 subjects. After the exclusion of 3,265 women who were ineligible or had died, 60,393 agreed to participate. CONCLUSIONS: GLOW will provide contemporary information on patterns of management of fracture risk in older women over a 5-year period. The collection of data in a similar manner in ten countries will permit comparisons of patient experience with prevention and treatment and provide insights into the distribution of risk among older women on an international basis

Fatores de risco para fratura por osteoporose e baixa densidade óssea em mulheres na pré e pós-menopausa

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence and analyze risk factors associated to osteoporosis and low-trauma fracture in women. METHODS: Cross-sectional study including a total of 4,332 women older than 40 attending primary care services in the Greater São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil, between 2004 and 2007. Anthropometrical and gynecological data and information about lifestyle habits, previous fracture, medical history, food intake and physical activity were obtained through individual quantitative interviews. Low-trauma fracture was defined as that resulting from a fall from standing height or less in individuals 50 years or older. Multiple logistic regression models were designed having osteoporotic fracture and bone mineral density (BMD) as the dependent variables and all other parameters as the independent ones. The significance level was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: The prevalence of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures was 33% and 11.5%, respectively. The main risk factors associated with low bone mass were age (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 1.06;1.08), time since menopause (OR=2.16; 95% CI: 1.49;3.14), previous fracture (OR=2.62; 95% CI: 2.08;3.29) and current smoking (OR=1.45; 95% CI: 1.13;1.85). BMI (OR=0.88; 95% CI: 0.86;0.89), regular physical activity (OR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.65;0.94) and hormone replacement therapy (OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.33;0.56) had a protective effect on bone mass. Risk factors significantly associated with osteoporotic fractures were age (OR=1.05; 95% CI: 1.04;1.06), time since menopause (OR=4.12; 95% CI: 1.79;9.48), familial history of hip fracture (OR=3.59; 95% CI: 2.88;4.47) and low BMD (OR=2.28; 95% CI: 1.85;2.82). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age, menopause, low-trauma fracture and current smoking are major risk factors associated with low BMD and osteoporotic fracture. The clinical use of these parameters to identify women at higher risk for fractures might be a reasonable strategy to improve the management of osteoporosis.OBJETIVO: Estimar la prevalencia y analizar los factores de riesgo asociados con osteoporosis y fractura por bajo impacto entre mujeres. MÉTODOS: Estudio transversal realizado con 4.332 mujeres encima de 40 años de edad provenientes de atención primaria de salud en el área metropolitana de la gran São Paulo, SP, entre 2004 2007. Datos antropométricos y ginecológico y relativos a hábitos de vida, fractura previa, antecedentes personales, ingestión alimentaria y actividad física fueron evaluados por medio de entrevista individual y cuantitativa. Fractura por bajo impacto fue definida como decurrente de caída de la propia altura o menos en individuos con más de 50 años de edad. Modelos de regresión multivariada y logística analizaron, respectivamente, la densidad ósea y la fractura por osteoporosis, como variables dependientes y todas las otras como independientes. El nivel de significancia estadística establecido fue p<0,05. RESULTADOS: La prevalencia de osteoporosis y de fracturas por fragilidad ósea fue de 33% y 11,5%, respectivamente. Los principales factores de riesgo asociados con baja densidad ósea fueron edad (OR=1,07; IC 95%: 1,06;1,08), menopausia (OR=2,16; IC 95%: 1,49;3,14), fractura previa (OR=2,62; IC 95%: 2,08;3,29) y tabaquismo actual (OR=1,45; IC 95%: 1,13;1,85). Por otro lado, elevado IMC (OR=0,88; IC 95%: 0,86;0,89), actividad física regular (OR=0,78; IC 95%: 0,65;0,94) y terapia hormonal actual (OR=0,43; IC 95%: 0,33;0,56) desempeñaron papel protector. Los factores de riesgo significantemente relacionados con fractura por osteoporosis fueron edad (OR=1,05; IC 95%: 1,04;1,06), menopausia (OR=4,12; IC 95%: 1,79;9,48), historia familiar de fractura de cuadril (OR=3,59; IC 95%: 2,88;4,47) y baja densidad ósea (OR=2,28; IC 95%: 1,85;2,82). CONCLUSIONES: Edad avanzada, menopausia, fractura previa por bajo impacto y tabaquismo actual son los principales factores de riesgo asociados con baja densidad ósea y esta, con las fracturas por fragilidad ósea. El uso clínico de estos parámetros para identificar mujeres de mayor riesgo para fracturas puede ser una estrategia interesante para mejorar el abordaje de la osteoporosis.OBJETIVO: Estimar a prevalência e analisar os fatores de risco associados com osteoporose e fratura por baixo impacto entre mulheres. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal realizado com 4.332 mulheres acima de 40 anos de idade provenientes de atendimento primário de saúde na área metropolitana da Grande São Paulo, SP, entre 2004 e 2007. Dados antropométricos e ginecológicos e relativos a hábitos de vida, fratura prévia, antecedentes pessoais, ingestão alimentar e atividade física foram avaliados por meio de entrevista individual e quantitativa. Fratura por baixo impacto foi definida como decorrente de queda da própria altura ou menos em indivíduos com mais de 50 anos de idade. Modelos de regressão multivariada e logística analisaram, respectivamente, a densidade óssea e a fratura por osteoporose como variáveis dependentes e todas as outras como independentes. O nível de significância estatística estabelecido foi p < 0,05. RESULTADOS: A prevalência de osteoporose e de fraturas por fragilidade óssea foi de 33% e 11,5%, respectivamente. Os principais fatores de risco associados com baixa densidade óssea foram idade (OR = 1,07; IC 95%: 1,06;1,08), menopausa (OR = 2,16; IC 95%: 1,49;3,14), fratura prévia (OR = 2,62; IC 95%: 2,08;3,29) e tabagismo atual (OR = 1,45; IC 95%: 1,13;1,85). Por outro lado, elevado IMC (OR = 0,88; IC 95%: 0,86;0,89), atividade física regular (OR = 0,78; IC 95%: 0,65;0,94) e terapia hormonal atual (OR = 0,43; IC 95%: 0,33;0,56) desempenharam papel protetor. Os fatores de risco significativamente relacionados com fratura por osteoporose foram idade (OR = 1,05; IC 95%: 1,04;1,06), menopausa (OR = 4,12; IC 95%: 1,79;9,48), história familiar de fratura de quadril (OR = 3,59; IC 95%: 2,88;4,47) e baixa densidade óssea (OR = 2,28; IC 95%: 1,85;2,82). CONCLUSÕES: Idade avançada, menopausa, fratura prévia por baixo impacto e tabagismo atual são os principais fatores de risco associados com baixa densidade óssea, a qual se associa com as fraturas por fragilidade óssea. O uso clínico desses parâmetros para identificar mulheres de maior risco para fraturas pode ser uma estratégia interessante para melhorar a abordagem da osteoporose.Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Escola Paulista de MedicinaUNIFESP-EPM Instituto de Diagnóstico por ImagemUNIFESP-EPM Programa de Pós-Graduação em ReumatologiaUNIFESP-EPM Departamento de RadiologiaUNIFESP, EPM, Instituto de Diagnóstico por ImagemUNIFESP, EPM Programa de Pós-Graduação em ReumatologiaUNIFESP, EPM Depto. de RadiologiaSciEL

Design aspects for prognostic factor studies

Prognostic research is clinically relevant and ultimately facilitates stratified medicine. However, its quality and output are limited. More guidance is needed to improve understanding and thus quality. On behalf of the topic group 'TG5: study design' of the STRATOS initiative and for the general readership, this article describes key concepts and issues for prognostic factor studies, a sub-area of prognosis research. After providing a general overview on prognosis research, the article covers aspects such as aims, estimands and designs of prognostic factor studies, highlighting standards and current practice. Focusing on prognostic factor studies that assess a single factor at a time and a binary outcome, this article is complemented by a glossary of terms and a list of general aspects to consider in prognostic factor studies

Adherence to osteoporosis drugs and fracture prevention: no evidence of healthy adherer bias in a frail cohort of seniors

We examined new users of osteoporosis drugs among seniors in Pennsylvania and found no evidence of healthy adherer bias on observed associations between adherence to treatment and non-vertebral fracture risk; we document fracture reduction with better adherence to bisphosphonates, yet no fracture reduction with better adherence to calcitonin or raloxifene

Bisphosphonate prescribing, persistence and cumulative exposure in Ontario, Canada

Summary: We studied new users of oral bisphosphonates and found that less than half persisted with therapy for 2 years, and interruptions in use were common. During a median observation period of 4.7 years, 10% of patients filled only a single prescription, 37% switched therapies and median cumulative exposure was 2.2 years. Introduction: We sought to describe bisphosphonate prescribing, persistence and cumulative exposure among seniors in Ontario, Canada. Methods: We used Ontario Drug Benefit pharmacy claims to identify residents aged $\geq$ 66 years who initiated oral bisphosphonate therapy between April 1996 and March 2009. The first date of bisphosphonate dispensing was considered the index date. Persistence with therapy was defined as continuous treatment with no interruption exceeding 60 days. We examined persistence with therapy and the number of extended gaps (>60 days) between prescriptions over time periods ranging from 1 to 9 years. We also identified the proportion of patients filling only a single prescription and switching to a different bisphosphonate, and calculated the median days of exposure irrespective of gaps in therapy. Results: A total of 451,113 eligible new bisphosphonate users were identified: mean age = 75.6 years (SD = 6.9), 84% female, and median follow-up length = 4.7 years. Persistence with therapy declined from 63% at 1 year to 46% at 2 years and 12% at 9 years. Among those with at least 5 years of follow-up (n = 213,029), 61% had one or more extended gaps in bisphosphonate therapy. Overall, 10% of patients filled only a single prescription, 37% switched to a different bisphosphonate and the median exposure was 2.2 years. Conclusion: Less than half of patients persisted with bisphosphonate therapy for 2 years and interruptions in therapy were common, with most patients experiencing two or more >60-day gaps in therapy. Interventions are needed to improve persistence with bisphosphonate therapy and reduce the frequency of gaps in treatment

Comparative gastrointestinal safety of weekly oral bisphosphonates

Weekly bisphosphonates are the primary agents used to treat osteoporosis. Although these agents are generally well tolerated, serious gastrointestinal adverse events, including hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleed, may arise. We compared the gastrointestinal safety between weekly alendronate and weekly risedronate and found no important difference between new users of these agents