The sequential antifracturative treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: Subjects with a fragility fracture have an increased risk of a new fracture and should receive effective strategies to prevent new events. The medium-term to long-term strategy should be scheduled by considering the mechanisms of action in therapy and the estimated fracture risk. Objective: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the sequential strategy in patients with or at risk of a fragility fracture in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were investigated up to February 2021 to update the search of a recent systematic review. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the sequential therapy of antiresorptive, anabolic treatment, or placebo in patients with or at risk of a fragility fracture were eligible. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using fixed-effects models. The primary outcome was the risk of refracture, while the secondary outcome was the bone mineral density (BMD) change. Results: In all, 17 RCTs, ranging from low to high quality, met our inclusion criteria. A significantly reduced risk of fracture was detected at (i) 12 or 24 months after the switch from romosozumab to denosumab versus placebo to denosumab; (ii) 30 months from teriparatide to bisphosphonates versus placebo to bisphosphonates; and (iii) 12 months from romosozumab to alendronate versus the only alendronate therapy (specifically for vertebral fractures). In general, at 2 years after the switch from anabolic to antiresorptive drugs, a weighted BMD was increased at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck site. Conclusion: The Task Force formulated recommendations on sequential therapy, which is the first treatment with anabolic drugs or 'bone builders' in patients with very high or imminent risk of fracture.

A systematic review to evaluate the sequential therapy of antiresorptive (denosumab and bisphosphonate, such as alendronate, minodronate, risedronate, and etidronate), anabolic treatment (such as romosozumab, teriparatide), or placebo in patients with or at risk of a fragility fracture in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines Subjects with previous fragility fractures should promptly receive effective strategies to prevent the risk of subsequent events. Indeed, patients with a fragility fracture have a doubled risk of a new fracture. For this reason, it is essential to provide adequate sequential therapy based on the mechanisms and the rapidity of action. A systematic review was performed to identify the sequential strategy in patients at high- or imminent-risk of (re)fracture and to support the Panel of the Italian Fragility Fracture Guideline in formulating recommendations. Our systematic review included seventeen studies mostly focused on women and enabled us to strongly recommend the anabolic drugs as first-line treatment. Specifically, for the sequential therapy from anabolic to antiresorptive treatment, there was a significant reduction in the risk of different types of fractures after the switch from romosozumab to denosumab versus placebo to denosumab. These findings were confirmed at 24 months after the switch. Considering the sequential treatment from antiresorptive to anabolic medications, there was a decreased risk of fracture 12 months after the switch from placebo to teriparatide versus bisphosphonate or antiresorptive to teriparatide. Moreover, a greater bone mineral density increase after the switch from anabolic to antiresorptive medications was shown in the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis confirm that initial treatment with anabolic drugs produces substantial bone mineral density improvements, and the transition to antiresorptive drugs can preserve or even amplify the acquired benefit. These findings support the choice to treat very high-risk individuals with anabolic drugs first, followed by antiresorptive drugs.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021.

Background: Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field. Purpose: This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline. Methods: The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations. Results: Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively. Conclusions: The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

Medication holidays in osteoporosis: evidence-based recommendations from the Italian guidelines on 'Diagnosis, risk stratification, and continuity of care of fragility fractures' based on a systematic literature review.

Background: Noncommunicable, chronic diseases need pharmacological interventions for long periods or even throughout life. The temporary or permanent cessation of medication for a specific period, known as a 'medication holiday,' should be planned by healthcare professionals. Objectives: We evaluated the association between continuity (adherence or persistence) of treatment and several outcomes in patients with fragility fractures in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources and Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2020 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed medication holidays in patients with fragility fracture. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random effects models. Primary outcomes were refracture and quality of life; secondary outcomes were mortality and treatment-related adverse events. Results: Six RCTs and nine observational studies met our inclusion criteria, ranging from very low to moderate quality. The adherence to antiosteoporotic drugs was associated with a lower risk of nonvertebral fracture [relative risk (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.87; three studies] than nonadherence, whereas no difference was detected in the health-related quality of life. A reduction in refracture risk was observed when continuous treatment was compared to discontinuous therapy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.98; three studies). A lower mortality rate was detected for the adherence and persistence measures, while no significant differences were noted in gastrointestinal side effects in individuals undergoing continuous versus discontinuous treatment. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that clinicians should promote adherence and persistence to antiosteoporotic treatment in patients with fragility fractures unless serious adverse effects occur.

The interdisciplinary fracture liaison service improves health-related outcomes and survival of older adults after hip fracture surgical repair.

Due to the high burden of fragility fractures, we developed an interdisciplinary FLS care pathway for early management and monitoring of older adults discharged from a high-volume trauma center after hip fracture repair. Interdisciplinary FLS effectively improves up to 1-year adherence to treatments for secondary prevention of fragility fractures, reduces health facility admission, and improves long-term survival. PURPOSE: To compare adherence to secondary fragility fracture prevention, falls, healthcare facility admissions, and mortality between hip fracture older adults who entered the fracture liaison services pathway of care (FLS-CP) and those managed according to the usual traumatologist model of care (U-CP). METHODS: Prospective observational study enrolling subjects aged ≥ 65 years discharged by high-volume trauma center after hip fracture repair from February 2016 to February 2017, who consecutively entered FLS-CP or U-CP according to their preference and goals. RESULTS: Compared to U-CP, those in FLS-CP had higher initiation rate and up to 1-year adherence to secondary prevention of fragility fracture, including vitamin D and calcium (87.7% vs 36.9%; p < 0.0001), specific anti-osteoporosis drugs (75.1% vs 8.0%; p < 0.0001), and complete anti-fracture therapy (72.3% vs 5.7%; p < 0.0001). Older adults belonging to FLS-CP showed a lower likelihood of healthcare facility admission (RR 0.597; 95% CI 0.398-0.895; p = 0.0125), with a longer re-hospitalization-free survival (176.4 vs 88.7 days; p = 0.0152) than those in U-CP. One-year incidence of falls and fractures was similar between groups, with a lower tendency of the subjects in the FLS-CP to be multiple fallers (19% vs 34.8%; OR 0.057; 95% CI 0.004-0.876; p = 0.0690). The FLS-CP group experienced a lower 1-year (87.2% vs 74.3%; p = 0.001) and 3-year mortality (67.9% vs 55.6%; p = 0.0245) and a lower adjusted 5-year mortality hazard ratio (50.2% vs 58%; HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.60; 0.96). CONCLUSION: The FLS-CP may improve initiation and adherence to secondary prevention of fragility fractures, reduces healthcare facility admission, and improves long-term survival.