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.

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 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.

Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

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.

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.

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.

Use of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in clinical practice and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool future directions.

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool is a free, online fracture risk calculator which can be used to predict 10-year fracture risk for women and men over age 50 years. It incorporates seven clinical risk factors and bone density to give a 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture. This dynamic tool can be used with patients at the bedside to help guide treatment decisions. There are some limitations to Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, with the most central limitation being the fact that inputs are binary. Much research has been done to try to refine Fracture Risk Assessment Tool to allow for more accurate risk prediction, and this article describes the data for adjusting Fracture Risk Assessment Tool depending on the clinical scenario such as the dose of glucocorticoid use, presence of diabetes and others. Recently, the new FRAXplus tool has been developed to address many of these concerns and will likely replace the old Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in the future. At the current time, it is available in beta form.

Methods for Refining the FRAX® Tool in Patients with Low Bone Density to Help Improve the Accuracy of Osteoporotic Fracture Risk PredictionMany patients who have low bone density develop fragility fractures, even those whose bone density is not yet within the osteoporosis range. Thus, in patients with low bone density, the health care team should estimate the risk of fracture to decide which patients should take medications to prevent fractures. Factors such as age, body mass index, steroid use, family history and other clinical factors can influence the fracture risk, in addition to bone density. There is an online calculator called the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) which allows patients and doctors to integrate these risk factors with bone density in order to estimate the 10 year risk of osteoporotic fractures. FRAX® asks a series of yes/no questions about the patient's risks for fracture, and also takes into account the patient's country of residence, age, gender, race and bone density at the femur neck. However, there are some important limitations of this calculator. For example, we think that steroid medications increase the risk of fractures, and the higher the dose, the higher the risk of fractures. However, FRAX® only allows a "yes" or "no" input to the steroid use question. This paper aims to descibe methods for refining the FRAX® calculation to make the fracture risk prediction more accurate. For example, it describes a mathematical adjustment to FRAX® to account for the dose of steroids used. It also reviews methods for FRAX® adjustment for diabetes type 1 and 2, and severity of rheumatoid arthritis, among other considerations. Importantly, there is a new FRAX® tool that is currently in beta testing which will also further refine the accuracy of fracture risk prediction.

Challenges of fracture risk assessment in Asian and Black women.

OBJECTIVES: Bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk calculators (eg, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX]) guide primary prevention care in postmenopausal women. BMD scores use non-Hispanic White (NHW) reference data for T-score classification, whereas FRAX incorporates BMD, clinical risk factors, and population differences when calculating risk. This study compares findings among Asian, Black, and NHW women who underwent osteoporosis screening in a US health care system. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Asian, Black, and NHW women aged 65 to 75 years who underwent BMD testing (with no recent fracture, osteoporosis therapy, metastatic cancer, multiple myeloma, metabolic bone disorders, or kidney replacement therapy) were compared across the following measures: femoral neck BMD (FN-BMD) T-score (normal ≥ -1, osteoporosis ≤ -2.5), high FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk (FRAX-Hip ≥ 3%), FRAX risk factors, and diabetes status. RESULTS: Among 3640 Asian women, 23.8% had osteoporosis and 8.7% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (34.5% among those with osteoporosis). Among 11,711 NHW women, 12.3% had osteoporosis and 17.2% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (84.8% among those with osteoporosis). Among 1711 Black women, 68.1% had normal FN-BMD, 4.1% had BMD-defined osteoporosis, and 1.8% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (32.4% among those with osteoporosis). Fracture risk factors differed by group. Diabetes was 2-fold more prevalent in Black and Asian (35% and 36%, respectively) vs NHW (16%) women. CONCLUSIONS: A large subset of Asian women have discordant BMD and FRAX scores, presenting challenges in osteoporosis management. Furthermore, FN-BMD and especially FRAX scores identified few Black women at high fracture risk warranting treatment. Studies should examine whether fracture risk assessment can be optimized in understudied racial minority populations, particularly when findings are discordant.

Osteoporosis management in patients with chronic kidney disease (ERCOS Study): A challenge in nephrological care.

Fracture risk assessment in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been included in the CKD-MBD ("Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorders") complex in international and national nephrology guidelines, suggesting for the first time the assessment of bone mineral density (BMD) if the results can influence therapeutic decision-making. However, there is very little information on actual clinical practice in this population. The main objective of the ERCOS (ERC-Osteoporosis) study is to describe the profile of patients with CKD G3-5D with osteoporosis (OP) and/or fragility fractures treated in specialized nephrology, rheumatology and internal medicine clinics in Spain. Fifteen centers participated and 162 patients (mostly women [71.2%] postmenopausal [98.3%]) with a median age of 77 years were included. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 36 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 38% of the included patients were on dialysis. We highlight the high frequency of prevalent fragility fractures [37.7%), mainly vertebral (52.5%) and hip (24.6%)], the disproportionate history of patients with glomerular disease compared to purely nephrological series (corticosteroids) and undertreatment for fracture prevention, especially in nephrology consultations. This study is an immediate call to action with the dissemination of the new, more proactive, clinical guidelines, and underlines the need to standardize a coordinated and multidisciplinary care/therapeutic approach to these patients in an efficient way to avoid current discrepancies and therapeutic nihilism.

Forgetting the Frail: National Trends in Vitamin D Prescription After Fragility Fracture-A Large Insurance Claims Database Study.

INTRODUCTION: Vitamin D plays a critical role in bone health, affecting bone mineral density and fracture healing. Insufficient serum vitamin D levels are associated with increased fracture rates. Despite guidelines advocating vitamin D supplementation, little is known about the prescription rates after fragility fractures. This study aims to characterize vitamin D prescription rates after three common fragility fractures in patients older than 50 years and explore potential factors influencing prescription rates. METHODS: The study used the PearlDiver Database, identifying patients older than 50 years with hip fractures, spinal compression fractures, or distal radius fractures between 2010 and 2020. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and vitamin D prescription rates were analyzed. Statistical methods included chi-square analysis and univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 3,214,294 patients with fragility fractures were included. Vitamin D prescriptions increased from 2.50% to nearly 6% for all fracture types from 2010 to 2020. Regional variations existed, with the Midwest having the highest prescription rate (4.25%) and the West the lowest (3.31%). Patients with comorbidities such as diabetes, tobacco use, obesity, female sex, age older than 60 years, and osteoporosis were more likely to receive vitamin D prescriptions. DISCUSSION: Despite a notable increase in vitamin D prescriptions after fragility fractures, the absolute rates remain low. Patient comorbidities influenced prescription rates, perhaps indicating growing awareness of the link between vitamin D deficiency and these conditions. However, individuals older than 60 years, a high-risk group, were markedly less likely to receive prescriptions, possibly because of practice variations and concerns about polypharmacy. Educational initiatives and revised guidelines may have improved vitamin D prescription rates after fragility fractures. However, there is a need to raise awareness about the importance of vitamin D for bone health, particularly in older adults, and additional study variations in prescription practices. These findings emphasize the importance of enhancing post-fracture care to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with fragility fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

[Augmentation techniques for the treatment of osteoporosis-associated fractures of the extremities]. / Augmentationstechniken zur Versorgung osteoporoseassoziierter Frakturen der Extremitäten.

The current demographic development is leading to an increasing number of cases of osteoporosis-related fractures. Affected individuals are typically part of a vulnerable, predominantly geriatric patient group with limited physical resources. Additionally, the pathophysiological characteristics of osteoporotic bones with reduced bone quality and quantity, pose a significant challenge to the osteosynthesis techniques used. Achieving rapid postoperative mobilization and stable weight-bearing osteosynthesis to prevent postoperative medical complications are the main goals of the surgical management. In recent years augmentation techniques have gained in importance in the treatment of osteoporosis-related fractures by significantly enhancing the stability of osteosyntheses and reducing mechanical complication rates. The main options available are polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) augmentation and various bioresorbable bone substitute materials with different properties. Implant augmentations can be applied at various locations in the extremity bones and standardized procedures are now available, such as for the proximal humerus and femur. When used correctly, low complication rates and promising clinical outcomes are observed. This article aims to provide an overview of available techniques and applications based on the current literature. Guidelines and substantial scientific evidence are still limited.

Expanding access to fracture liaison services in Australia for people with minimal trauma fractures: a system dynamics modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To project how many minimal trauma fractures could be averted in Australia by expanding the number and changing the operational characteristics of fracture liaison services (FLS). STUDY DESIGN: System dynamics modelling. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: People aged 50 years or more who present to hospitals with minimal trauma fractures, Australia, 2020-31. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of all minimal trauma fractures and of hip fractures averted by increasing the FLS number (from 29 to 58 or 100), patient screening rate (from 30% to 60%), and capacity for accepting new patients (from 40 to 80 per service per month), and reducing the proportion of eligible patients who do not attend FLS (from 30% to 15%); cost per fracture averted. RESULTS: Our model projected a total of 2 441 320 minimal trauma fractures (258 680 hip fractures; 2 182 640 non-hip fractures) in people aged 50 years or older during 2020-31, including 1 211 646 second or later fractures. Increasing the FLS number to 100 averted a projected 5405 fractures (0.22%; $39 510 per fracture averted); doubling FLS capacity averted a projected 3674 fractures (0.15%; $35 835 per fracture averted). Our model projected that neither doubling the screening rate nor reducing by half the proportion of eligible patients who did not attend FLS alone would reduce the number of fractures. Increasing the FLS number to 100, the screening rate to 60%, and capacity to 80 new patients per service per month would together avert a projected 13 672 fractures (0.56%) at a cost of $42 828 per fracture averted. CONCLUSION: Our modelling indicates that increasing the number of hospital-based FLS and changing key operational characteristics would achieve only moderate reductions in the number of minimal trauma fractures among people aged 50 years or more, and the cost would be relatively high. Alternatives to specialist-led, hospital-based FLS should be explored.

[Prescription of osteoporosis drugs and secondary fracture prevention still at low levels and with large regional variation]. / Låg förskrivning av läkemedel för osteoporos inom Sverige.

In Sweden, secondary prevention of fragility fractures through osteoporosis medication is directed by national guidelines. According to these, postmenopausal women and men who have suffered a fragility fracture should be assessed and pharmaceutical treatment of osteoporosis should always be considered. For the most serious fractures (hip and vertebral fractures), treatment can be initiated immediately. Despite this, previous studies have shown that the level of pharmaceutical treatment is low. In Sweden, osteoporosis drugs are predominantly administered by prescription, but about one-third of drugs are nowadays administered on-site in the health care system, which is not recorded in national registers. We have estimated the total amount of osteoporosis drugs through aggregated sales statistics. Our results show that medical treatment with osteoporosis drugs is still at low levels, covering approximately 5 percent of the population aged 70 or older, with clear differences between regions.

Improving patients' experiences of diagnosis and treatment of vertebral fracture: co-production of knowledge sharing resources.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis involves changes to bones that makes them prone to fracture. The most common osteoporotic fracture is vertebral, in which one or more spinal vertebrae collapse. People with vertebral fracture are at high risk of further fractures, however around two-thirds remain undiagnosed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends bone protection therapies to reduce this risk. This study aimed to co-produce a range of knowledge sharing resources, for healthcare professionals in primary care and patients, to improve access to timely diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This study comprised three stages: 1. In-depth interviews with primary care healthcare professionals (n = 21) and patients with vertebral fractures (n = 24) to identify barriers and facilitators to diagnosis and treatment. 2. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to diagnosis were presented to three stakeholder groups (n = 18), who suggested ways of identifying, diagnosing and treating vertebral fractures. Fourteen recommendations were identified using the nominal group technique. 3. Two workshops were held with stakeholders to co-produce and refine the prototype knowledge sharing resources (n = 12). RESULTS: Stage 1: Factors included lack of patient information about symptoms and risk factors, prioritisation of other conditions and use of self-management. Healthcare professionals felt vertebral fractures were harder to identify in lower risk groups and mistook them for other conditions. Difficulties in communication between primary and secondary care meant that patients were not always informed of their diagnosis, or did not start treatment promptly. Stage 2: 14 recommendations to improve management of vertebral fractures were identified, including for primary care healthcare professionals (n = 9) and patients (n = 5). Stage 3: The need for allied health professionals in primary care to be informed about vertebral fractures was highlighted, along with ensuring that resources appealed to under-represented groups. Prototype resources were developed. Changes included help-seeking guidance and clear explanations of medical language. CONCLUSIONS: The study used robust qualitative methods to co-produce knowledge sharing resources to improve diagnosis. A co-production approach enabled a focus on areas stakeholders thought to be beneficial to timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Dissemination of these resources to a range of stakeholders provides potential for substantial reach and spread.