Patients not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication now prescribed medication through Ontario FLS.

In an Ontario fracture liaison service (FLS), we compared medication prescription rates among patients not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to those with no previous prescription. Prescription rates were similar between these two groups of patients. The FLS provided a secondary opportunity for patients to initiate bone active medication. PURPOSE: We compared bone active medication prescription rates among patients presenting to an Ontario fracture liaison service (FLS) who reported not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to those with no history of prescription. METHODS: Eligible patients were those screened in 39 fracture clinics between July 1, 2017, and September 15, 2019, who were not taking bone active medication at the time of screening and classified as high risk for future fracture based on CAROC or FRAX. Sociodemographic and clinical risk factor variables were assessed at screening. Bone active medication prescription rate was assessed within 6 months of screening and defined as having received a prescription for the medication from either a specialist or primary care provider. In cases where a specialist report was not available, patient self-reported data were collected. The chi-square test of independence was used to assess differences in prescription rates. RESULTS: Of 17,575 patients screened, eligible patients were 350 with a previous prescription and 2644 without a previous prescription. Compared with patients who reported no previous prescription, those who had a previous prescription were older, more likely to be female and to report a previous fracture, and less likely to smoke. There was no statistically significant difference between the medication prescription rate of patients with a previous prescription (73.7%) compared to patients with no previous prescription (70.7%) (p = 0.157). CONCLUSION: A large jurisdiction-wide FLS approach provided a secondary opportunity to patients who were not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to initiate that medication.

Fragility fracture patients with a history of prior fractures more likely to present with multiple risk factors: findings from a province-wide fracture liaison service.

We examined the demographic characteristics and risk factors of FLS fragility fracture patients who had sustained prior fragility fracture(s) and found that this is an important high-risk subgroup that warrants further attention within FLS priority pathways in order to disrupt their fragility fracture cycle. PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to examine whether fragility fracture patients presenting to a provincial fracture liaison service (FLS) having a history of prior fractures, versus those without, differ in demographic characteristics and risk factors for future fracture. A secondary objective was to understand if those who report two or more prior fractures differ from those reporting one prior fracture. METHODS: This cohort study included fragility fracture patients aged 50 + enrolled in the Ontario FLS between July 2017 and September 2019. Patients with versus those without prior fractures were compared on age, sex, index fracture site, biological parents' history of hip fracture, current fracture due to a fall, history of feeling unsteady when walking, history of falls in the past year, smoking, oral steroid use, and comorbid chronic conditions. Pearson's chi-square, Fischer's exact, and analysis of variance tests were used to assess differences. RESULTS: Among 14,454 patients, 16.8% (n = 2428) reported a history of one or more prior fractures after the age of 40. They were significantly more likely to be older, female, with a higher number of comorbidities, with greater incidence of falls, and feel unsteady when walking. Compared to those with one prior fracture, patients with greater than one prior fracture were more likely to report falls in the past year and feel unsteady when walking. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that FLS fragility fracture patients who had sustained prior fragility fracture are an important high-risk subgroup that warrants further attention within FLS priority pathways in order to disrupt their fragility fracture cycle.

Patients 80 + have similar medication initiation rates to those aged 50-79 in Ontario FLS.

Among individuals presenting to an Ontario FLS, we compared bone active medication initiation rates of patients 80 years and older with those 50-79 years old. After accounting for fracture risk status, there was no statistically significant difference in medication initiation rates between the two age groups INTRODUCTION: A Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) offers post-fracture services to individuals over the age of 50 years and could potentially address age inequities in pharmacotherapy often observed for older adults. Among individuals presenting to an Ontario FLS and classified as being at high risk for future fracture, our objective was to compare bone active medication initiation rates of patients 80 years and older with those 50-79 years old. METHODS: In 39 FLS fracture clinics across Ontario, Canada, fracture prevention coordinators identified, assessed, and facilitated the referral of eligible patients for bone densitometry, fracture risk assessment, and implementation of pharmacotherapy in patients classified as high risk for future fracture. Variables assessed at baseline included age, sex, marital status, living location, fracture location, history of previous fracture, parent's history of hip fracture, history of falls, and fracture risk status. At 6 months, bone active medication initiation was assessed in patients classified as high risk for future fracture. The Chi-square test of independence was used to compare medication initiation rates between patients 80 + and those 50-79 years old. RESULTS: Our sample size consisted of 808 patients aged 50-79 years and 346 aged 80 + years. After accounting for fracture risk status, there was no statistically significant difference in medication initiation rates of patients 50-79 and 80 + years old (76.9% versus 73.7%, p = 0.251). CONCLUSION: A systematic approach to identifying patients at high risk for future fracture and tailoring treatment recommendations to these patients appeared to eliminate differences in treatment initiation rates based on older age.

Having caregiving responsibilities affects management of fragility fractures and bone health.

In this secondary analysis of six qualitative studies, we found that approximately one-quarter of individuals with fragility fracture were serving as informal caregivers. The caregiving role appeared to be a cause of the fracture for some and was prioritized over bone health, acting as a barrier to bone health management. INTRODUCTION: Among fragility fracture patients serving as informal caregivers, our objective was to examine how caregiving responsibilities were associated with, and possibly impacted by, the fracture experience and the resulting management of bone health. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis (amplified analysis) of six qualitative studies to understand caregiver responsibilities and the relationship between these responsibilities and patients' management of the fracture and bone health. The primary studies and the secondary analysis were conducted from a phenomenological approach. Eligible individuals in the primary studies were English-speaking men and women who were 45+ years old recruited from three settings (local, provincial, and national). RESULTS: Without being prompted to talk about their experience of caregiving, 33 of 145 (23%) individuals reported they were providing care to a family member or friend at the time of their fracture or during recovery post-fracture. The experience of having caregiving responsibilities was related to the fracture and bone health in two ways: (1) the caregiving role appeared to be a cause of the fracture in some participants and (2) caregiving was prioritized over participants' own bone health and was a barrier to bone health management. CONCLUSION: Fragility fracture is associated with, and potentially leads to an impairment of, an important social role in patients providing physical and emotional support and supervision for dependents as caregivers. Further, an important cause of fragility fracture can occur in the act of caregiving.

Multiple simultaneous fractures are associated with higher all-cause mortality: results from a province-wide fracture liaison service.

Mortality rates in our fracture liaison service ranged from 2.7% at year 1 to 14.8% at year 5 post-screening. Presentation with multiple simultaneous fractures at screening was associated with higher risk of death. This finding indicates the need for increased focus on this high-risk group. PURPOSE: To examine all-cause mortality rates in a provincial fracture liaison service (FLS) and the association between the index fracture type, particularly multiple simultaneous fractures, and the risk of death at follow-up. METHODS: This cohort study includes fragility fracture patients aged 50+, enrolled in a provincial FLS in Ontario, Canada, between 2007 and 2010. All-cause mortality was assessed using administrative data. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the risk of death 5 years after screening. RESULTS: Crude mortality rates for 6543 fragility fracture patients were 2.7% at year 1, 5.6% at year 2, and 14.8% at year 5 after screening. After adjusting for age and sex, and relative to distal radius fracture, patients with multiple (simultaneous) fractures at screening had a higher risk of dying (HR = 1.8, 95%CI 1.3-2.4), followed by those with a hip fracture (HR = 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.8), a proximal humerus fracture (HR = 1.4, 95%CI 1.2-1.7), and other single fractures (HR = 1.4, 95%CI 1.1-1.7). Having an index ankle fracture was not associated with the risk of death over a distal radius fracture. As compared to the 50-65 age group, patients 66 years and older had a higher risk of death (for 66-70 age group: HR = 2.5, 95%CI 1.9-3.3; for 71-80: HR = 4.3, 95%CI 3.5-5.4; and for 81+: HR = 10.6, 95%CI 8.7-13.0). Females had a lower risk of death (HR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.5-0.6) than males. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting with multiple fractures was an indicator of higher risk of death relative to a distal radius fracture. This finding indicates the need for increased focus on this high-risk group.

Few fragility fracture patients perceive that their bone health is affected by their comorbidities and medications.

We examined fragility fracture patients' perceptions of associations between bone health and other chronic conditions and medications. Awareness of the associations between bone health and these conditions and medications was low. Providers should increase patients' awareness of these associations in order to minimize the risk of future fracture. INTRODUCTION: Among patients with a fragility fracture presenting with at least one other chronic health condition, we examined (1) perceptions of the association between bone health and their other health conditions, and (2) perceptions of the association between bone health and prescribed medications taken for other health conditions. METHODS: We identified fragility fracture patients presenting to a Canadian urban fracture clinic with at least one self-reported chronic health condition (in addition to bone fragility). In-depth interviews, 60-90 min in duration, were conducted. Our qualitative methodology was informed by saliency analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 patients (21 females, 5 males) aged 45 to 84 years old. Participants were taking 1-13 medications each and presented with a variety of comorbidities (range 1-7). All participants described at least one condition or medication they were currently taking for which there existed evidence of a negative effect on bone health (increased risk of fracture, bone loss, falling). Two participants perceived a correct association between their other health conditions and compromised bone health, and four participants perceived a correct association between their medications and compromised bone health. CONCLUSION: All patients reported a chronic health condition and/or were taking at least one medication that potentially compromised their bone health. Patient awareness of the association between bone health and other health conditions and prescribed medications was low. Health care providers should increase patients' awareness of the bone health significance of their chronic conditions and medications in order to minimize the risk of future fracture.

Five-year refracture rates of a province-wide fracture liaison service.

We examined the 5-year refracture rate of 6543 patients and found an overall rate of 9.7%. Adjusted analysis showed that presenting with multiple fractures was an indicator of a higher refracture risk; while presenting with an ankle fracture was associated with a lower refracture risk. INTRODUCTION: To examine refractures among patients screened in a province-wide fracture liaison service (FLS). METHODS: We assessed the 5-year refracture rate of fragility fracture patients aged 50+ who were screened at 37 FLS fracture clinics in Ontario, Canada. Refracture was defined as a new hip, pelvis, spine, distal radius, or proximal humerus fracture. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age, sex, and index fracture type were used to examine refracture rates. RESULTS: The 5-year refracture rate of 6543 patients was 9.7%. Those presenting with multiple fractures at baseline (i.e., two or more fractures occurring simultaneously) had the highest refracture rate of 19.6%. As compared to the 50-65 age group, refracture risk increased monotonically with age group (66-70 years: HR = 1.3, CI 95%, 1.0-1.7; 71-80 years: HR = 1.7, CI 1.4-2.1; 81+ years: HR = 3.0, CI 2.4-3.7). Relative to distal radius, presenting with multiple fractures at screening was associated with a higher risk of refracture (HR = 2.3 CI 1.6-3.1), while presenting with an ankle fracture was associated with a lower risk of refracture (HR = 0.7 CI 0.6-0.9). Sex was not a statistically significant predictor of refracture risk in this cohort (HR = 1.2, CI 1.0-1.5). CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients in our cohort refractured within 5 years after baseline. Presenting with multiple fractures was an indicator of a higher refracture risk, while presenting with an ankle fracture was associated with a lower refracture risk. A more targeted FLS approach may be appropriate for patients at a higher refracture risk.

The impact of fragility fractures on work and characteristics associated with time to return to work.

We examined the impact of fragility fractures on the work outcomes of employed patients. The majority successfully returned to their previous jobs in a short amount of time, and productivity loss at work was low. Our findings underscore the fast recovery rates of working fragility fracture patients. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to describe the impact of fragility fractures on the work outcomes of patients who were employed at the time of their fracture. METHODS: A self-report anonymous survey was mailed to fragility fracture patients over 50 who were screened as part of the quality assurance programs of fracture clinics across 35 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Measures of return to work (RTW), at-work productivity loss (Work Limitations Questionnaire), and sociodemographic, fracture-related, and job characteristics were included in the survey. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative proportion of patients still off work were computed. Factors associated with RTW time following a fragility fracture were examined using Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Of 275 participants, 242 (88 %) returned to work. Of these, the median RTW time was 20.5 days. About 86 % returned to the same job, duties, and hours as before their injury. Among full-time workers, the median number of lost hours due to presenteeism was 2.9 h (Q1-Q3 0.4-8.1 h). The median cost of presenteeism was $75.30 based on the month prior to survey completion. In multivariable analyses, female gender, needing surgery, and medium/heavy work requirements were associated with longer RTW time. Earlier RTW time was associated with elbow fracture and feeling completely better at time of survey completion. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of fragility fracture patients successfully returned to their previous jobs in a short amount of time, and productivity loss at work was low. Our findings underscore their fast recovery rates and give reason for optimism regarding the resilience of this population.

Addition of a fracture risk assessment to a coordinator's role improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening in a fragility fracture screening program.

We evaluated the impact of a more intensive version of an existing post-fracture coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found that the addition of a full-risk assessment improved treatment rates. These findings provide additional support for more intensive programs aimed at reducing the risk of re-fractures. INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based guidelines support coordinator-based programs to improve post-fracture osteoporosis guideline uptake, with more intensive programs including bone mineral density (BMD) testing and/or treatment being associated with better patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a more intensive version (BMD "fast track") of an existing provincial coordinator-based program. METHODS: We compared two versions of the program that screened treatment naïve fragility fracture patients (>50 years). Cases came from the BMD fast track program that included full fracture risk assessment and communication of relevant guidelines to the primary care provider (PCP). Matched controls were selected from the usual care program matching according to age, sex, fracture type, and date. Two matching techniques were used: traditional (hard) matching (TM) and propensity score matching (PS). The outcomes were treatment initiation with bone sparing medication, BMD testing rate, and the rate of returning to discuss the test results with a PCP. RESULTS: The program improvements led to a significant improvement in treatment initiation within 6 months from 16 % (controls based on PS) or 21 % (controls based on TM) to 32 % (cases). Ninety percent of patients in the BMD fast track program returned to their PCP to discuss bone health in the cases versus 60 % of the controls (for TM and PS). BMD testing occurred in 96 % of cases compared to the 66 (TM) or 65 % (PS) of the matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of a full-risk assessment to a coordinator-based program significantly improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening.

Equal treatment: no evidence of gender inequity in osteoporosis management in a coordinator-based fragility fracture screening program.

We evaluated gender imbalance in osteoporosis management in a provincial coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. This establishes that a systemic approach with interventions for all fragility fracture patients can eliminate the gender inequity that is often observed. INRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate an Ontario-based fracture prevention program for its ability to address the well-documented gender imbalance in osteoporosis (OP) management, by incorporating its integrated fracture risk assessments within a needs-based evaluation of equity. METHODS: Fragility fracture patients (≥ 50 years) who were treatment naïve at screening and completed follow-up within 6 months of screening were studied. Patients who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) testing done in the year prior to their current fracture were excluded. All participants had BMD testing conducted through the Ontario OP Strategy Fracture Screening and Prevention program, thus providing us with fracture risk assessment data. Our primary study outcome was treatment initiation at follow-up within 6 months of screening. Gender differences were compared using Fisher's exact test, at p < 0.05. RESULTS: After adjusting for subsequent fracture risk, study participants did not show a statistically significant gender difference in pharmacotherapy initiation at follow-up (p > 0.05). 68.4% of women and 66.2% of men at high risk were treated within 6 months of screening. CONCLUSION: Needs-based analyses show no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. An intensive coordinator-based fracture prevention model adopted in Ontario, Canada was not associated with gender inequity in OP treatment of fragility fracture patients after fracture risk adjustment.

Men's health-seeking behaviours regarding bone health after a fragility fracture: a secondary analysis of qualitative data.

UNLABELLED: In our qualitative study, men with fragility fractures described their spouses as playing an integral role in their health behaviours. Men also described taking risks, preferring not to dwell on the meaning of the fracture and/or their bone health. Communication strategies specific to men about bone health should be developed. INTRODUCTION: We examined men's experiences and behaviours regarding bone health after a fragility fracture. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of five qualitative studies. In each primary study, male and female participants were interviewed for 1-2 h and asked to describe recommendations they had received for bone health and what they were doing about those recommendations. Maintaining the phenomenological approach of the primary studies, the transcripts of all male participants were re-analyzed to highlight experiences and behaviours particular to men. RESULTS: Twenty-two men (50-88 years old) were identified. Sixteen lived with a wife, male partner, or family member and the remaining participants lived alone. Participants had sustained hip fractures (n = 7), wrist fractures (n = 5), vertebral fractures (n = 2) and fractures at other locations (n = 8). Fourteen were taking antiresorptive medication at the time of the interview. In general, men with a wife/female partner described these women as playing an integral role in their health behaviours, such as removing tripping hazards and organizing their medication regimen. While participants described giving up activities due to their bone health, they also described taking risks such as drinking too much alcohol and climbing ladders or deliberately refusing to adhere to bone health recommendations. Finally, men did not dwell on the meaning of the fracture and/or their bone health. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviours consistent with those shown in other studies on men were described by our sample. We recommend that future research address these findings in more detail so that communication strategies specific to men about bone health be developed.

Patients do not have a consistent understanding of high risk for future fracture: a qualitative study of patients from a post-fracture secondary prevention program.

UNLABELLED: We examined fracture patients' understanding of "high" fracture risk after they were screened through a post-fracture secondary prevention program and educated about their risk verbally, numerically, and graphically. Our findings suggest that messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and need to be modified to better suit patients' needs. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to examine fracture patients' understanding of high risk for future fracture. METHODS: We conducted an in-depth qualitative study in patients who were high risk for future fracture. Patients were screened through the Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program where they were educated about fracture risk: verbally told they were "high risk" for future fracture, given a numerical prompt that they had a >20 % chance of future fracture over the next 10 years, and given a visual graph highlighting the "high risk" segment. This information about fracture risk was also relayed to patients' primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. Participants were interviewed at baseline (within six months of fracture) and follow-up (after visit with a PCP and/or specialist) and asked to recall their understanding of risk and whether it applied to them. RESULTS: We recruited 27 patients (20 females, 7 males) aged 51-87 years old. Fractures were sustained at the wrist (n = 7), hip (n = 7), vertebrae (n = 2), and multiple or other locations (n = 11). While most participants recalled they had been labeled as "high risk" (verbal cue), most were unable to correctly recall the other elements of risk (numerical, graphical). Further, approximately half of the patients who recalled they were high risk did not believe that high risk applied, or had meaning, to them. Participants also had difficulty explaining what they were at risk for. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that health care providers' messages about fracture risk are confusing to patients and that these messages need to be modified to better suit patients' needs.

Patient perceptions of provider barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention.

UNLABELLED: We examined patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after being screened through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Provider-level barriers to testing and treatment appeared to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on testing. INTRODUCTION: Post-fracture secondary prevention programs have had modest effects on bone densitometry rates and osteoporosis (OP) treatment initiation. Few studies have examined in depth the reasons that patients choose to seek or avoid investigation and treatment after screening through such a program. Our purpose was to examine patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after screening through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program (FCSP). METHODS: We conducted a prospective qualitative study in fragility fracture patients screened through one site of the FCSP. Eligible patients not on antiresorptive medication at the time of fracture were assessed by an osteoporosis screening coordinator and advised to follow up with their primary care physician for a BMD test and appropriate treatment. Participants were interviewed within 6, and within 18, months of their clinic visit. Fracture risk was assessed by the study team. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by two researchers. RESULTS: We conducted 51 interviews with 25 patients (22 females, 3 males) aged 50-79 years old, of whom 8 were deemed high risk for future fracture. Eighteen participants had a BMD test between baseline and follow-up and three reported receiving a prescription for pharmacotherapy. We categorized 21 participants as experiencing at least one barrier to BMD testing and appropriate treatment including health care providers telling participants that the fracture was not a fragility fracture, using participants' appearance/demographic information and X-rays to judge bone density, telling participants that a BMD test was not appropriate, failing to discuss fracture risk status, and giving unclear or incorrect information about treatment. CONCLUSION: We identified modifiable barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention from the patient's perspective. Provider-level barriers appeare to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on BMD testing.

Factors influencing the pharmacological management of osteoporosis after fragility fracture: results from the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy's fracture clinic screening program.

UNLABELLED: Potential mediating factors in the pathway to initiation of osteoporosis treatment following a fragility fracture were evaluated. Patients' perceived need for treatment, mediated by their perception of bone density test results, was central to treatment initiation. Interventions focusing on patients' perceptions of need and test results may improve treatment rates. INTRODUCTION: We tested a hypothesized pathway to osteoporosis (OP) pharmacotherapy initiation in fragility fracture patients. We hypothesized that bone mineral density (BMD) testing is strongly associated with treatment initiation and perception of BMD test results would inform patients' perceived need for treatment, which would mediate the effect between BMD testing and treatment initiation. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study followed patients, ≥50 years of age, screened for fragility fracture in 31 fracture clinics in Ontario, Canada who had no prior diagnosis of or treatment for OP. At screening, OP risk factors, baseline-patient perception of OP risk, OP knowledge, and perceived benefits of medication were reported by patients. Patients were followed up within 6 months of fracture to determine BMD testing and prescription of and adherence to first-line OP pharmacotherapy. Structural equation modeling tested the hypothesized pathway. Significance and magnitude of the coefficients and indicators of overall model fit were used to test our model. RESULTS: The direct path from BMD testing to OP treatment initiation was non-significant. The pathway to treatment initiation was mediated by patients' perception of their need, which was influenced by their self-reported BMD results. Baseline fracture risk factors, knowledge of OP, and perceived benefits of treatment-predicted patient-perceived need for treatment at follow-up and initiation of OP treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perceptions were central factors in the path to initiation of OP pharmacotherapy. Interventions to facilitate accurate patient perceptions of BMD test results and OP risk status could prove helpful in improving OP treatment initiation.

Non-pharmacological strategies used by patients at high risk for future fracture to manage fracture risk--a qualitative study.

UNLABELLED: We examined patients' self-management of bone health and fracture risk, particularly behaviors other than medication use and seeking diagnostic testing. Awareness of fracture risk was accompanied by positive lifestyle changes in participants' lives such as being careful. Future research should evaluate how lifestyle changes mitigate fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: We examined patients' understanding of bone health and self-management decisions regarding bone health and fracture risk, particularly behaviors other than medication use and seeking diagnostic testing. METHODS: A phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. English-speaking patients, 65+ years old, who were "high risk" for future fracture and prescribed pharmacotherapy after being screened through a post-fracture osteoporosis initiative were eligible. Patients were interviewed for 1-2 h and were asked to discuss perceptions of bone health status (bone densitometry results and perceived fracture risk), recommendations received for bone health, and lifestyle changes since their most recent fracture. We analyzed the data guided by Giorgi's methodology. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 fracture patients (6 males and 15 females), aged 65 to 88 years old. With the exception of one participant, all participants appeared to understand that they had low bone mass and were at risk of sustaining another fracture. Most participants (n = 20) were predominantly concerned about being careful, and they focused their responses on personal and environmental factors that they perceived to be modifiable. Participants also spoke about strategies to manage their bone health such as exercise, having a healthy diet and taking supplements, and using aids and devices. Non-pharmacological strategies used by patients appeared to be independent of current use of pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of fracture risk was accompanied by a number of positive lifestyle changes in participants' lives such as being careful and engaging in exercise. Future research needs to evaluate how lifestyle changes such as being careful mitigate fracture risk.

Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture--a new understanding based on fracture patients' communication.

UNLABELLED: We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not connect fractures to bone health. The term "fragility" fracture was a misnomer to patients who perceived the event as physically and emotionally traumatic. Improved communication about such fractures could facilitate awareness of bone health. INTRODUCTION: We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not perceive the connection between their fracture and low bone mass. METHODS: A descriptive phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. During face-to-face interviews, the participants described the experience of their fracture in detail and the circumstances surrounding the fracture. Data analysis was guided by Giorgi's methodology. English-speaking male and female patients aged 65+ years and "high" risk for future fracture were eligible and screened for osteoporosis through an established screening program at an urban teaching hospital. RESULTS: We recruited 30 participants (9 males, 21 females), aged 65-88, who presented with a hip (n = 11), wrist (n = 11), shoulder (n = 6), or other (n = 2) fracture. Ten of the 30 fractures occurred inside the home and the remaining fractures occurred outside the home. Sustaining a fragility fracture was perceived as a traumatic event, both physically and emotionally. In general, participants used forceful, action-oriented words and referred to hard surfaces to describe the experience. Explanations for the fracture, other than bone quality, were often reported, especially that falls were "freak" or "fluke" events. Patients who sustained a fracture under more mundane circumstances seemed more likely to perceive a connection between the fracture and their bone health. CONCLUSIONS: The term fragility fracture was a misnomer for many older adults. By reexamining how this term is communicated to fracture patients, health care providers may better facilitate patients' awareness of bone health.

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

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

Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients.

This study aims to determine osteoporosis (OP) investigation and treatment within post-fracture initiatives conducted in fracture clinics and other orthopedic environments. A systematic review was conducted. Eligibility criteria were: hip fracture patients plus all other fracture patients presenting with a fragility fracture, orthopedic setting where orthopedic physicians/staff were involved, intervention to improve OP management, primary data on ≥20 patients from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other study designs. We calculated outcome data within 6 months of screening from an intention-to-treat principle to derive an equated proportion (EP) across interventions. Outcomes were: (1) proportion of patients investigated with bone densitometry, (2) proportion of patients initiating OP medication, and (3) proportion of patients taking OP medication. We identified 2,259 citations, of which 57 articles that included 64 intervention groups were eligible. The median EP for patients investigated was 43% and the 75th percentile was 71%. The median EP for medication initiation was 22% and the 75th percentile was 34%. The median EP for medication taking was 27.5% and the 75th percentile was 43%. The EPs for all outcomes were higher for interventions with dedicated personnel to implement the intervention and those within which bone mineral density testing and/or treatment were included. In studies with an EP, up to 71% of patients were investigated for OP, but <35% initiated medication, and <45% were taking medication within 6 months of screening. Calculating an EP allowed us to compare outcomes across the studies, therefore capturing both RCTs and other study designs typical of real-world settings.

Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients.

The underlying causes of incident fractures--bone fragility and the tendency to fall--remain under-diagnosed and under-treated. This care gap in secondary prevention must be addressed to minimise both the debilitating consequences of subsequent fractures for patients and the associated economic burden to healthcare systems. Clinical systems aimed at ensuring appropriate management of patients following fracture have been developed around the world. A systematic review of the literature showed that 65% of systems reported include a dedicated coordinator who acts as the link between the orthopaedic team, the osteoporosis and falls services, the patient and the primary care physician. Coordinator-based systems facilitate bone mineral density testing, osteoporosis education and care in patients following a fragility fracture and have been shown to be cost-saving. Other success factors included a fracture registry and a database to monitor the care provided to the fracture patient. Implementation of such a system requires an audit of existing arrangements, creation of a network of healthcare professionals with clearly defined roles and the identification of a 'medical champion' to lead the project. A business case is needed to acquire the necessary funding. Incremental, achievable targets should be identified. Clinical pathways should be supported by evidence-based recommendations from national or regional guidelines. Endorsement of the proposed model within national healthcare policies and advocacy programmes can achieve alignment of the objectives of policy makers, professionals and patients. Successful transformation of care relies upon consensus amongst all participants in the multi-disciplinary team that cares for fragility fracture patients.

Biomechanical validation of finite element models for two silicone metacarpophalangeal joint implants.

Silicone implants are used for prosthetic arthroplasty of metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints severely damaged by rheumatoid arthritis. Different silicone elastomer MCP implant designs have been developed, including the Swanson and the NeuFlex implants. The goal of this study was to compare the in vitro mechanical behavior of Swanson and NeuFlex MCP joint implants. Three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) models of the silicone implants were modeled using the commercial software ANSYS and subjected to angular displacement from 0 deg to 90 deg. FE models were validated using mechanical tests of implants incrementally bent from 0 deg to 90 deg in a joint simulator. Swanson size 2 and 4 implants were compared with NeuFlex size 10 and 30 implants, respectively. Good agreement was observed throughout the range of motion for the flexion bending moment derived from 3D FE models and mechanical tests. From 30 deg to 90 deg, the Swanson 2 demonstrated a greater resistance to deformation than the NeuFlex 10 and required a greater bending moment for joint flexion. For larger implant sizes, the NeuFlex 30 had a steeper moment-displacement curve, but required a lower moment than the Swanson 4, due to implant preflexion. On average, the stress generated at the implant hinge from 30 deg to 90 deg was lower in the NeuFlex than in the Swanson. On average, starting from the neutral position of 30 deg for the preflexed NeuFlex implant, higher moments were required to extend the NeuFlex implants to 0 deg compared with the Swanson implants, which returned spontaneously to resting position. Implant toggling within the medullary canals was less in the NeuFlex than in the Swanson. The differential performance of these implants may be useful in implant selection based on the preoperative condition(s) of the joint and specific patient functional needs.