Introduction of an order set after hip fracture improves osteoporosis medication initiation and persistence: a population-based before-after analysis.

We found that a standardized order set after hip fracture increased initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication and increased persistence at 1 year, but did not reduce secondary fractures. BACKGROUND: A treatment gap exists after osteoporosis-related fractures. Introducing standardized care can improve treatment. We evaluated the impact of a hip fracture order set (OS) on anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) initiation, persistence, and secondary fracture prevention. METHODS: In 2015, one hospital in Manitoba, Canada, introduced a hip fracture OS including recommendations for the initiation of AOM (OS group). A control group was identified from the other hospitals in the same region. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using linked administrative health data. All individuals 50 + years with surgical treatment for low-energy hip fracture between 2010 and 2019 were included and followed for AOM initiation, medication persistence at 1 year, and secondary fractures. Between-group differences for each year were assessed using chi-square tests. Logistic regression models tested the impact of socio-demographic and clinical factors on initiation, persistence of AOM. Cox regression tested the risk of secondary fracture. RESULTS: No baseline differences between OS group (813 patients) and control group (2150 patients) were observed in demographics, socioeconomic factors, or comorbidities. An increase in post-fracture AOM initiation was seen with OS introduction (OS group year before 16.7% versus year after 48.6%, p < 0.001). No change was seen in the control group. Persistence on AOM also increased (OS group year before 17.7% versus year after 28.4%, p < 0.001). No difference in secondary fractures was observed (OS group 19.8% versus control group 18.8%, p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Introduction of a hip fracture OS significantly increased AOM initiation and persistence at 1-year post-fracture. There was no significant difference in secondary fractures.

Examining treatment targets and equity in bone-active medication use within secondary fracture prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review seeks to evaluate the proportion of fragility fracture patients screened in secondary fracture prevention programs who were indicated for pharmacological treatment, received prescriptions for bone-active medications, and initiated the prescribed medication. Additionally, the study aims to analyze equity in pharmacological treatment by examining equity-related variables including age, sex, gender, race, education, income, and geographic location. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to ascertain the proportion of fragility fracture patients indicated for treatment who received prescriptions and/or initiated bone-active medication through secondary fracture prevention programs. We also examined treatment indications reported in studies and eligibility criteria to confirm patients who were eligible for treatment. To compute the pooled proportions for medication prescription and initiation, we carried out a single group proportional meta-analysis. We also extracted the proportions of patients who received a prescription and/or began treatment based on age, sex, race, education, socioeconomic status, location, and chronic conditions. RESULTS: This review included 122 studies covering 114 programs. The pooled prescription rate was 77%, and the estimated medication initiation rate was 71%. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in treatment initiation between the Fracture Liaison Service and other programs. Across all studies, age, sex, and socioeconomic status were the only equity variables reported in relation to treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review emphasizes the need for standardized reporting guidelines in post-fracture interventions. Moreover, considering equity stratifiers in the analysis of health outcomes will help address inequities and improve the overall quality and reach of secondary fracture prevention programs.

Secondary fracture prevention in primary care: a narrative review.

The global burden of osteoporosis continues to rise with an ageing population. Untreated osteoporotic fractures not only heighten the risk of subsequent fractures but are associated with excess mortality. Although primary care guidelines consistently stress the importance of secondary fracture prevention, fewer than 20% of patients are appropriately treated for osteoporosis following an initial osteoporotic fracture. This worldwide phenomenon is known as the osteoporosis care gap. This literature review examines the barriers to secondary fracture prevention in primary care and evaluates the effectiveness of targeted primary care interventions. Common themes emerged from the majority of qualitative studies, including a need for improved communication between the hospital team and primary care, better defined responsibilities and osteoporosis-directed education for the primary care physicians. Quantitative studies demonstrated that most targeted, intensive interventions aimed at educating patients and their primary care physician about osteoporosis treatment significantly increased rates of investigation and treatment. Greater uptake of models of secondary fracture prevention in primary care is urgently needed to address the osteoporosis care gap.

Secondary fracture and mortality risk with very high fracture risk osteoporosis and proximal femoral fracture.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate secondary fracture and mortality rates, and risk factors in patients with proximal femoral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study on female patients with proximal femoral fractures who underwent surgical treatment between April 2020 and March 2021. Postoperative follow-ups were performed at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month intervals to determine the secondary fracture and mortality rates, and the risk factors and its influence were examined. RESULTS: Of the 279 registered patients, 144 patients (51.6%) were diagnosed with very high fracture risk osteoporosis. The postoperative osteoporosis rate exceeded 96%; however, osteoanabolic agents were used sparingly. The risk factor of both secondary fracture and mortality was very high fracture risk osteoporosis, and secondary fractures within 12 months were markedly occurred. Secondary fracture rates increased as the number of matched very high fracture risk osteoporosis criteria increased. Notably, secondary fractures and mortality were recorded in 21.4% and 23.5% of the patients who met all criteria, respectively. CONCLUSION: Over half of the female patients with proximal femoral fractures had very high fracture risk osteoporosis. Although, very high fracture risk osteoporosis demonstrated a notably increased risk of secondary fractures, particularly at 12 months post-surgery, the use of osteoanabolic agents was substantially low. Collectively, our findings highlight the need to consider the risk of very high fracture risk osteoporosis, expand the use of medications to include osteoanabolic agents, and reconsider the current healthcare approach for proximal femoral fractures.

Application of an in-hospital, surgeon-led anti-osteoporotic medication algorithm in patients with hip fractures improves persistence to medication and can prevent the second fragility fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Secondary fracture prevention is an essential part of hip fracture treatment. Despite this, many patients are discharged without the appropriate anti-osteoporotic medication. The aim of this study is to report the outcomes of the application of an in-hospital, surgeon-led anti-osteoporotic medication algorithm to patients with hip fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study followed patients with hip fractures who were treated at a tertiary referral hospital between 2020 and 2022. At discharge, anti-osteoporotic medication according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Foundation algorithm was prescribed to all patients. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the risks of non-persistence to medication and of secondary fracture. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen consecutive patients were prospectively followed. Mean follow-up was 17.2 ± 7.1 months. Persistence to medication at 2 years was 58% (95%CI 51-65%). A secondary osteoporotic fracture occurred in 1/126 (0.8%) persistent patients and 9/87 (11.4%) non-persistent patients. Multivariable Cox regression analysis confirmed that persistence to medication was significantly associated with a lower risk of secondary fracture (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0.05; 95%CI 0.01-0.45; p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The application of the surgeon-led AO Foundation algorithm enables the in-hospital initiation of anti-osteoporotic treatment, leading to better persistence to medication and decreased incidence of secondary osteoporotic fractures.

An Orthopaedic Surgeon Led Osteoporosis (OSLO) Model of Care reduces early recurrent fracture rates and improves treatment compliance in patients treated for osteoporotic fractures.

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of an Orthopaedic Surgeon Led Osteoporosis Model of Care (OSLO-MoC) in improving care of patients with primary osteoporotic fractures. The OSLO-MOC has shown to be effective in improving osteoporotic medication initiation and compliance and reducing secondary fracture rates in patients. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of an Orthopaedic Surgeon Led Osteoporosis Model of Care (OSLO-MoC) as compared to a Case Manager Led Osteoporosis Model of Care (CMLO-MoC) in reducing early osteoporotic re-fracture rates and treatment compliance in patients. METHODS: This was a single centre, retrospective, comparative cohort study of all patients screened and treated for secondary osteoporotic fracture prevention from the 2008 to 2018 at an orthopaedic surgical unit. From the 2008 to 2013, patients were recruited under the CMLO-MoC and from 2014 to 2018, under the OSLO-MOC. Logistics regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors such as OSLO-MOC implementation, gender, ethnicity, marital status and education level for patient recruitment, treatment compliance and secondary fracture rates at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, 7388 patients were screened of which 2855 patients were eligible for analysis. A total of 1234 patients were recruited under CMLO-MoC and 1621 patients under OSLO-MOC. Implementation of the OSLO-MOC was associated with greater patient recruitment, OR 1.26 (95%CI 1.06-1.49, P = 0.007). Of the 2855 patients recruited, OSLO-MOC implementation, OR 2.61 (95%CI 2.03-3.36, P < 0.001), and a higher level of education, OR 1.428 (95%CI 1.02-1.43, P = 0.037), were associated with improved compliance to medication at 12 months. OSLO-MOC implementation was the only factor associated with reduced risk of secondary fractures at 12 months, OR 0.14 (95%CI 0.03-0.66, P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: The OSLO-MOC has shown to be effective in reducing the rate of re-fracture and osteoporotic medication initiation and compliance of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Geriatric nutritional risk index as the prognostic factor in older patients with fragility hip fractures.

This study investigated the long-term survival and incidence of secondary fractures after fragility hip fractures. The 5-year survival rate was 62%, and the mortality risk was seen in patients with GNRI < 92. The 5-year incidence of secondary fracture was 22%, which was significantly higher in patients with a BMI < 20. BACKGROUND: Malnutrition negatively influences the postoperative survival of patients with fragility hip fractures (FHFs); however, little is known about their association over the long term. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the ability of the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) as a risk factor for long-term mortality after FHFs. METHODS: This study included 623 Japanese patients with FHFs over the age of 60 years. We prospectively collected data on admission and during hospitalization and assessed the patients' conditions after discharge through a questionnaire. We examined the long-term mortality and the incidence of secondary FHFs and assessed the prognostic factors. RESULTS: The mean observation period was 4.0 years (range 0-7 years). The average age at the time of admission was 82 years (range 60-101 years). The overall survival after FHFs (1 year, 91%; 5 years, 62%) and the incidence of secondary FHFs were high (1 year, 4%; 5 years, 22%). The multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed the risk factors for mortality as older age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04), male sex (HR 1.96), lower GNRI score (HR 0.96), comorbidities (malignancy, HR 2.51; ischemic heart disease, HR 2.24; revised Hasegawa dementia scale ≤ 20, HR 1.64), no use of active vitamin D3 on admission (HR 0.46), and a lower Barthel index (BI) (on admission, HR 1.00; at discharge, HR 0.99). The GNRI scores were divided into four risk categories: major risk (GNRI, < 82), moderate risk (82-91), low risk (92-98), and no risk (> 98). Patients at major and moderate risks of GNRI had a significantly lower overall survival rate (p < 0.001). Lower body mass index (BMI) was also identified as a prognostic factor for secondary FHFs (HR 0.88 [p = 0.004]). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that older age, male sex, a lower GNRI score, comorbidities, and a lower BI are risk factors for mortality following FHFs. GNRI is a novel and simple predictor of long-term survival after FHFs.

Association between pharmacotherapy and secondary hip fracture in a real-world setting: a nationwide database study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess the association between pharmacotherapy and secondary hip fracture incidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The correlation between secondary hip fracture incidence and the presence, type, and medication possession ratio (MPR) of pharmacotherapy was investigated using medical insurance data acquired from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan. RESULTS: Data collected from female patients (n = 1,435,347) were analyzed. The 2-year secondary hip fracture incidence was 3.48% (n = 49,921). Secondary hip fracture was significantly more common in patients without medications (3.80%) than in those with medications (3.00%). Patients receiving selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) had the lowest average age. The crude incidence of secondary hip fracture was the lowest in patients receiving SERMs (n = 2088 [2.52%]), followed by those taking bisphosphonates (n = 11,355 [2.88%]), denosumab (n = 1118 [2.90%]), no medications (n = 32,747 [3.80%]), and parathyroid hormone (PTH: n = 2163 [4.55%]), whereas the age-adjusted incidence was the lowest in patients administered denosumab (2.27%), followed by those taking bisphosphonates (2.47%), SERMs (2.55%), PTH (3.67%), and no medications (3.80%). The mean MPR was the highest in patients taking denosumab (64.9%), followed by those receiving bisphosphonates (58.7%), SERMs (58.2%), and PTH (40.6%) in the no hip fracture group. CONCLUSION: Secondary hip fractures were less likely to occur with medication versus no medication. Differences in the crude incidence of secondary hip fracture based on medications usage might be attributed to background characteristics.

Effect of coordinator-based osteoporosis intervention on quality of life in patients with fragility fractures: a prospective randomized trial.

We examined the effects of the coordinator-based intervention on quality of life (QOL) in the aftermath of a fragility fracture, as well as factors predictive of post-fracture QOL. The coordinator-based interventions mitigated the decrease in QOL. Secondary fracture after primary fracture, however, was a significant predictor of lower QOL. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effects of the coordinator-based intervention on QOL in the aftermath of a fragility fracture, as well as factors predictive of post-fracture QOL, in an Asian population. METHODS: Patients with new fractures in the intervention group received the coordinator-based intervention by a designated nurse certified as a coordinator, within 3 months of injury. QOL was evaluated using the Japanese version of the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) scale  before the fracture (through patient recollections) and at 0.5, 1, and 2 years after the primary fracture. RESULTS: Data for 141 patients were analyzed: 70 in the liaison intervention (LI) group and 71 in the non-LI group. Significant intervention effects on QOL were observed at 6 months after the fracture; the QOL score was 0.079 points higher in the LI group than in the non-LI group (p=0.019). Further, the LI group reported significantly less pain/discomfort at 2 years after the fracture, compared to the non-LI group (p=0.037). In addition, secondary fractures were found to significantly prevent improvement and maintenance of QOL during the recovery period (p=0.015). CONCLUSION: Short-term intervention effects were observable 6 months after the primary fracture, with the LI group mitigated the decrease in QOL. Few patients in the LI group reported pain/discomfort 2 years after the fracture, but there is uncertainty regarding its clinical significance. Secondary fracture after initial injury was a significant predictor of lower QOL after a fracture.

Osteoporosis Treatment After Osteoporotic Fractures: Data From a Single Medical Center.

OBJECTIVE: Most patients do not receive osteoporosis treatment after osteoporotic fracture. This study reviewed osteoporosis treatment after osteoporotic fractures in a center without a Fracture Liaison Service. METHODS: We identified all patients with hip, vertebral, humeral or radial fractures, evaluated in Meir Medical Center, in 2017. The exclusion criteria were not a Clalit Health Services member, high-energy fracture or 30-day postoperative mortality. The primary endpoint was osteoporosis drugs issued within 12 months of fracture. Secondary endpoints included bone densitometry and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Five-hundred-eighty-two patients (average age 78.6 ± 11.1 years, 75.8% women) were included. There were 321 (55.5%) hip, 84 (14.1%) humeral, 33 (5.6%) vertebral, and 144 (24.7%) radial fractures. Osteoporosis drugs were issued to 26.5% of the patients; those with humeral fractures received the least (21.4%) and vertebral, the most (30.3%; P = .51). Bone densitometry was performed in 23.2% of patients. One-year mortality after hip fracture was 12.1%, followed by humeral (3.6%; P < .05). Logistic regression showed that previous treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6-15.2), bone densitometry (OR = 4.4; 95% CI 2.6-7.4) and endocrinology visit (OR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.6) were the most important factors associated with treatment. CONCLUSION: Fewer than one third of patients received pharmacotherapy within 1 year after fracture. Because pharmacotherapy reduces future fractures and mortality, we recommend that medical staff who care for patients with fracture adopt practical and effective strategies to increase treatment rates among patients with osteoporotic fractures.

Incidence of fractures and clinical profile of patients following up at a Fracture Liaison Service in the city of Curitiba.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic fractures are common, and their incidence are increasing worldwide. The first fracture doubles the risk of new fractures. Despite that, up to 80% of patients with a fragility fracture are evaluated or treated to reduce the risk of new fractures. AIMS: To evaluate the results of the operation of the hospital Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) and to analyze the clinical characteristics of the patients attending the service in its first 2 years of operation and to estimate the fracture risk reduction ratio. METHODS: The FLS managed patients older than 50 years who were admitted with a low-energy trauma fracture between January 2017 and April 2018. This management consists in a full medical evaluation, nutritional and physical activity guidance, and specific osteoporosis treatment, if needed. RESULTS: We monitored and treated 135 patients. Forty percent of them had a previous fracture and only 20.3% of them received treatment to prevent new fractures. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the estimated incidence of new fractures over 24 months was 12.1% (95% CI 7.2-20.8%), indicating that the percentage of patients without new fractures due to bone fragility during treatment was estimated at 87.9% (95% CI 79.2-92.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation and treatment of patients who sustained a fragility fracture to prevent a secondary fracture is effective in reducing the risk of new fractures in high-risk patients.

Multidisciplinary care model for geriatric patients with hip fracture in Japan: 5-year experience.

INTRODUCTION: Japan is a super-aging society, the geriatric care system establishment for hip fractures is at an urgent task. This report described our concept of multidisciplinary care model for geriatric hip fractures and 5-year outcomes at the Toyama City Hospital, Japan. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, a multidisciplinary treatment approach was applied for elderly patients with hip fracture since 2014. These patients (n = 678, males: n = 143, mean age: 84.6 ± 7.5 years), were treated per the multidisciplinary care model. Time to surgery, length of hospital stays, complications, osteoporosis treatment, mortality, and medical costs were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean time to surgery was 1.7 days. Overall, 78.0% patients underwent surgery within 2 days. The mean duration of hospital stay was 21.0 ± 12.4 days. The most frequent complication was deep venous thrombosis (19.0%) followed by dysuria (14.5%). Severe complications were pneumonia 3.4%, heart failure 0.8% and pulmonary embolism 0.4%. The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.2%. The 90-day, 6-month, and 1-year mortality rates were 2.5%, 6.7%, and 12.6%, respectively. The pharmacotherapy rate for osteoporosis at discharge was 90.7%, and the continuation pharmacotherapy rate was 84.7% at 1-year follow-up. The total hospitalization medical cost per person was lower than about 400 other hospitals' average costs every year, totaled 14% less during the 5-year study period. CONCLUSION: We have organized a multidisciplinary team approach for geriatric hip fracture. This approach resulted in a shorter time to surgery and hospital stay than the national average. The incidence of severe complications and mortality was low. The multidisciplinary treatment has maintained a high rate of osteoporosis treatment after discharge and at follow-up. Furthermore, the total medical cost per person was less than the national average. Thus, the multidisciplinary treatment approach for geriatric hip fractures was effective and feasible to conduct in Japan.

Efficiency of coordinator-based osteoporosis intervention in fragility fracture patients: a prospective randomized trial.

We examined the effectiveness of coordinators' interventions to prevent secondary fractures in patients with fragility fractures. These coordinator-based interventions improved bone density assessment implementation and treatment rates, and enhanced treatment persistence rates in the early stages following fractures. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the efficiency of coordinator-based osteoporosis intervention in fragility fracture patients during a 2-year period. METHODS: A prospective intervention randomized control study was conducted at seven medical facilities from January 2015 to March 2017. Postmenopausal women and men over 50 years old with fragility fractures were randomly divided into the coordinator intervention (LI; 70 patients) and without intervention (non-LI; 71 patients) groups. The osteoporosis treatment rate, osteoporosis treatment persistence rate, fall rate, fracture incidence rate, and bone density measurement rate 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after registration were compared between the two groups. Non-parametric tests were used to analyze data at each inspection period. RESULTS: The osteoporosis treatment initiation rate was significantly higher in the LI group than in the non-LI group (85.7% vs. 71.8%; p = 0.04). The LI group had significantly higher bone density assessment implementation rates than the non-LI group at the time of registration (90.0% vs. 69.0%; p = 0.00) and 6 months after registration (50.0% vs. 29.6%; p = 0.01), but not 1 or 2 years after registration. In addition, no significant differences in fall or fracture incidence rates were found between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The coordinator-based interventions for fragility fractures improved bone density assessment implementation and treatment rates and enhanced treatment persistence rates in the early stages following bone fractures. The findings suggest that liaison intervention may help both fracture and osteoporosis physicians for the evaluation of osteoporosis and initiation and continuation of osteoporosis medication.

Effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary and secondary fracture care: mid-term outcomes in a single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as a treatment option in complex proximal humeral fractures, has significantly extended the surgical armamentarium. The aim of this study was to investigate the mid-term outcome following fracture RSA in acute or sequelae, as well as salvage procedures. It was hypothesized that revision RSA (SRSA) leads to similar mid-term results as primary fracture treatment by RSA (PRSA). METHODS: This retrospective study describes the radiological and clinical mid-term outcomes in a standardized single-centre and Inlay design. Patients who underwent RSA in fracture care between 2008 and 2017 were included (minimum follow-up: 2 years, minimum age: 60 years). The assessment tools used for functional findings were range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale, absolute (CS) plus normative Constant Score, QuickDASH, and Subjective Shoulder Value. All adverse events as well as the radiological results and their clinical correlations were statistically analysed (using p < .05and 95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: Following fracture RSA, 68 patients were included (mean age: 72.5 years, mean follow-up: 46 months). Forty-two underwent primary RSA (PRSA), and 26 underwent revision RSA (SRSA). Adverse advents were observed in 13% (n = 9/68). No statistically significant results were found for the scores of the PRSA and SRSA groups, while the failed osteosynthesis SRSA subgroup obtained statistically significantly negative values for ROM subzones (flexion: p = .020, abduction: p = .020). Decreased instances of tubercle healing were observed for the in PRSA group relative to the SRSA group (p = .006). The absence of bony healing of the tubercles was related to significant negative clinical and subjective outcomes (all scores: p < .05, external rotation: p= .019). Significant postoperative improvements were evaluated in the SRSA group (CS: 23 to 56 at mean, p = .001), the time from index surgery to operative revision revealed no associations in functional findings. CONCLUSIONS: RSA is an effective option in severe shoulder fracture management with predictable results for salvage as well as first-line treatment. Promising mid-term functional results, reasonable implant survival rates, and high patient satisfaction can be achieved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Fragility fracture identifies patients at imminent risk for subsequent fracture: real-world retrospective database study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The secondary fracture prevention gap in the osteoporosis field has been previously described as a 'crisis'. Closing this gap is increasingly important in the context of accumulating evidence showing that an incident fragility fracture is associated with an increased risk of subsequent fracture within 1-2 years, known as imminent fracture risk. The objective of this study was to use health services data to characterize the time between index fragility fractures occurring at different osteoporotic sites and subsequent fractures. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used de-identified health services data from the publicly funded healthcare system in Ontario, the largest province of Canada. Patients aged > 65 with an index fragility fracture occurring between 2011 and 2015 were identified from the ICES Data Repository using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. We examined median time to subsequent fragility fractures for osteoporotic fracture sites until the end of follow-up (2017). BMD assessment and use of osteoporosis therapies following index fracture were also characterized. RESULTS: Among 115,776 patients with an index fragility fracture, 17.8% incurred a second fragility fracture. Median time between index and second fracture occurring at any site was 555 days (interquartile range: 236-955). For each index fracture site examined, median time from index to second fracture was < 2 years. The proportion of patients with BMD assessment was 10.3% ≤1 year prior to and 16.4% ≤1 year post index fracture. The proportion of patients receiving osteoporosis therapy was 29.8% ≤1 year prior, 34.6% ≤1 year post, and 25.9% > 3 years post index fracture. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort of Canadian patients aged > 65 years who experienced a fragility fracture at any site are at imminent risk of experiencing subsequent fracture within the next 2 years and should be proactively assessed and treated.

Adherence to fracture liaison service programs in patients over 70: the hidden part of the iceberg.

Significant dropout rates have been observed throughout Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) programs, especially for elderly patients. In an FLS program set up specifically for patients over 70, the non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was the only factor associated with poor adherence to the program. Neither age nor frailty factors affected adherence. INTRODUCTION: FLS programs are considered the most effective interventions for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Our objective was to identify risk factors for non-adherence to an FLS program set up specifically for patients over 70. METHODS: Our multifaceted, intensive program included five appointments over a 2-year period. One hundred sixty-seven patients (mean age 83.5 years) who presented with a recent fragility fracture were enrolled. Multivariable analysis was conducted to determine whether the demographic, clinical, frailty, and osteoporotic risk factors of the patients influenced their adherence to the program. RESULTS: About half of the patients did not attend the follow-up visits. According to the regression analysis, non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was associated with poor adherence to the program (aHR 3.66). Demographic, clinical, dwelling, frailty factors, osteoporotic risk factors, fracture type, or densitometric scores were not associated with adherence. The first self-reported reason for withdrawal was the difficulty of attending several follow-up visits, and the second was the feeling of not being concerned. CONCLUSION: We observed that non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was the only factor correlated with non-adherence to an FLS program. Thus, neither age nor frailty factors should result in patients not being included in FLS. Beyond the necessity of the osteoporosis treatment, good patient understanding of the relevance of all the interventions included in the program is the key.

A patient-level key performance indicator set to measure the effectiveness of fracture liaison services and guide quality improvement: a position paper of the IOF Capture the Fracture Working Group, National Osteoporosis Foundation and Fragility Fracture Network.

The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) Capture the Fracture® Campaign with the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) and National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) has developed eleven patient-level key performance indicators (KPIs) for fracture liaison services (FLSs) to guide quality improvement. INTRODUCTION: Fracture Liaison Services (FLSs) are recommended worldwide to reduce fracture risk after a sentinel fracture. Given not every FLS is automatically effective, the IOF Capture the Fracture working group has developed and implemented the Best Practice Framework to assess the organisational components of an FLS. We have now developed a complimentary KPI set that extends this assessment of performance to the patient level. METHODS: The Capture the Fracture working group in collaboration with the Fragility Fracture Network Secondary Fragility Fracture Special Interest Group and National Osteoporosis Foundation adapted existing metrics from the UK-based Fracture Liaison Service Database Audit to develop a patient-level KPI set for FLSs. RESULTS: Eleven KPIs were selected. The proportion of patients: with non-spinal fractures; with spine fractures (detected clinically and radiologically); assessed for fracture risk within 12 weeks of sentinel fracture; having DXA assessment within 12 weeks of sentinel fracture; having falls risk assessment; recommended anti-osteoporosis medication; commenced of strength and balance exercise intervention within 16 weeks of sentinel fracture; monitored within 16 weeks of sentinel fracture; started anti-osteoporosis medication within 16 weeks of sentinel fracture; prescribed anti-osteoporosis medication 52 weeks after sentinel fracture. The final KPI measures data completeness for each of the other KPIs. For these indicators, levels of achievement were set at the < 50%, 50-80% and > 80% levels except for treatment recommendation where a level of 50% was used. CONCLUSION: This KPI set compliments the existing Best Practice Framework to support FLSs to examine their own performance using patient-level data. By using this KPI set for local quality improvement cycles, FLSs will be able to efficiently realise the full potential of secondary fracture prevention and improved clinical outcomes for their local populations.

Secondary prevention of fragility fractures in Asia Pacific: an educational initiative.

The Asia -Pacific Bone Academy (APBA) Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) Focus Group educational initiative has stimulated activity across the Asia -Pacific region with the intention of supporting widespread implementation of new FLS. In 2017, the APBA FLS Focus Group developed a suite of tools to support implementation of FLS across the Asia-Pacific region as a component of a multi-faceted educational initiative. This article puts this initiative into context with a narrative review describing the burden of fragility fractures in the region, the current secondary fracture prevention care gap and a summary of emerging best practice. The results of a survey to evaluate the impact of the APBA educational initiative is presented, in addition to commentary on recent activities intended to improve the care of individuals who sustain fragility fractures across the Asia -Pacific. A FLS Toolbox for Asia-Pacific was developed which included the following sections:1. The burden of fragility fractures in the Asia-Pacific region.2. A summary of evidence for FLS in the Asia-Pacific.3. A generic, fully referenced FLS business plan template.4. Potential cost savings accrued by each country, based on a country-specific FLS Benefits Calculator.5. How to start and expand FLS programmes in the Asia-Pacific context.6. A step-by-step guide to setting up FLS in countries in the Asia-Pacific region.7. Other practical tools to support FLS establishment.8. FLS online resources and publications.The FLS Toolbox was provided as a resource to support FLS workshops immediately following the 5th Scientific Meeting of the Asian Federation of Osteoporosis Societies (AFOS) held in Kuala Lumpur in October 2017. The FLS workshops addressed three key themes:• The FLS business case.• Planning the FLS patient pathway.• The role of the FLS coordinator in fragility fracture care management.A follow-up survey of 142 FLS workshop participants was conducted in August-September 2018. The survey included questions regarding how FLS were developed, funded, the scope of service provision and the support provided by the educational initiative. Almost one-third (30.3%) of FLS workshop participants completed the survey. Survey responses were reported for those who had established a FLS at the time the survey was conducted and, separately, for those who had not established a FLS. Findings for those who had established a FLS included:• 78.3% of respondents established a multidisciplinary team to develop the business case for their FLS.• 87.0% of respondents stated that a multidisciplinary team was established to design the patient pathway for their FLS.• 26.1% of respondents stated that their FLS has sustainable funding.• The primary source of funding for FLS was from public hospitals (83.3%) as compared with private hospitals (16.7%).Most hospitals that had not established a FLS at the time the survey was conducted were either in the process of setting-up a FLS (47%) or had plans in place to establish a FLS for which approval is being sought (29%). The primary barrier to establishing a new FLS was lack of sustainable funding. The APBA FLS Focus Group educational initiative has stimulated activity across the Asia-Pacific region with the intention of supporting widespread implementation of new FLS. A second edition of the FLS Toolbox is in development which is intended to complement ongoing efforts throughout the region to expedite widespread implementation of FLS.

Ten years change in post-fracture care for hip fracture patients.

INTRODUCTION: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed to clarify the changes in postoperative care provided by orthopaedic surgeons after hip fractures and clarify the incidence of secondary fractures requiring surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were patients with hip fracture treated surgically in seven hospitals during the 10-year period from January 2008 to December 2017. Data on patient demographics, comorbidities, preoperative and postoperative osteoporosis treatments, and secondary fractures were collected from the medical records. RESULTS: In total, 4764 new hip fractures in 982 men and 3782 women (mean age: 81.3 ± 10.0 years) were identified. Approximately 10% of patients had a history of osteoporosis drug treatment and 35% of patients received postoperative drug treatment. The proportion of patients receiving postoperative drug therapy increased by approximately 10% between 2009 and 2010, 10% between 2010 and 2011, and 10% between 2011 and 2013. Although the rate of secondary fractures during the entire period and within 3 years decreased from 2011, the rate of secondary fracture within 1 year remained at around 2% every year. CONCLUSIONS: The approval of new osteoporosis drugs and the establishment of osteoporosis liaison services have had a positive effect on the use of postoperative drug therapy in the orthopedic field. Our finding that the rate of secondary fracture within 1 year of the initial fracture remained around 2% every year, despite improvements in postoperative drug therapy, suggests that both rehabilitation for preventing falls and early postoperative drug therapy are essential to prevent secondary fractures.

Duration of ultrasonic activation causing secondary fractures during the removal of the separated instruments with different tapers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of taper (.08, .06, and .04) of separated K3XF instruments on duration taken for the secondary fracture formation during ultrasonic activation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten 25/.08 K3XF (SybronEndo, Orange, CA, USA), ten 25/.06 K3XF, and ten 25/.04 K3XF instruments were used for the study. The apical 5 mm of the instruments was cut to simulate the fragments in root canals. Fragments of the instruments were sandwiched between two straight dentin blocks. An ultrasonic tip was used to cause a secondary fracture of the fragment. The time needed for the secondary fracture was recorded for each instrument. The data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Secondary fractures occurred in all instruments. In the .08 taper group, secondary fractures took longer than in the case of the .06 and the .04 taper groups (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the .06 and the .04 taper groups in terms of the time required for the occurrence of a secondary fracture (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the .08 taper group, secondary fracture took longer time than in the case of the .06 and the .04 taper groups due to its larger cross-sectional area involved. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Typically, when removing separated instruments, a much lower power setting is chosen. The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine which tapered files were more resilient to secondary fracture, thus allowing a higher power setting to be chosen. Thus, the results of the present study cannot be used in clinical practice. If the clinician knows the taper of the broken file, the clinician should be very careful with regard to secondary fractures when using ultrasonics to remove the separated smaller tapered instruments.