Adjusting FRAX Estimates of Fracture Probability Based on a Positive Vertebral Fracture Assessment.

Importance: FRAX is the most widely used and validated fracture risk prediction tool worldwide. Vertebral fractures, which are an indicator of subsequent osteoporotic fractures, can be identified using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) vertebral fracture assessment (VFA). Objective: To assess the calibration of FRAX and develop a simple method for improving FRAX-predicted fracture probability in the presence of VFA-identified fracture. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study analyzed the DXA and VFA results of all individuals who underwent a VFA between March 31, 2010, and March 31, 2018, who were included in the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density Registry. These individuals were randomly assigned to either the development cohort or validation cohort. A modified algorithm-based qualitative approach was used by expert readers to code VFAs as positive (≥1 vertebral fractures detected) or negative (0 vertebral fracture detected). Statistical analysis was conducted from August 7, 2022, to May 22, 2023. Exposures: FRAX scores for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture were calculated with or without VFA results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident fractures and death were ascertained using linked population-based health care provincial data. Cumulative incidence curves for MOF and hip fracture were constructed, including competing mortality, to predict the 10-year observed risk of fracture. The observed probability was compared with FRAX-predicted fracture probability with and without VFA results and recalibrated FRAX from derived multipliers. Results: The full cohort of 11 766 individuals was randomly allocated to the development cohort (n = 7854; 7349 females [93.6%]; mean [SD] age, 75.7 [6.8] years) or the validation cohort (n = 3912; 3713 females [94.9%]; mean [SD] age, 75.5 [6.9] years). Over a mean (SD) observation time of 3.8 (2.3) years, with the longest observation at 7.5 years, FRAX was well calibrated in subgroups with negative VFA results. For individuals without a prior clinical fracture but with a positive VFA result, the 10-year FRAX-predicted MOF probability was 16.3% (95% CI, 15.7%-16.8%) without VFA information and 23.4% (95% CI, 22.7%-24.1%) with VFA information. The observed 10-year probabilities were 26.9% (95% CI, 26.0%-27.8%) and 11.2% (95% CI, 10.3%-12.1%), respectively, resulting in recalibration multipliers of 1.15 (95% CI, 0.87-1.43) for MOF and 1.31 (95% CI, 0.75-1.87) for hip fracture. For individuals with a prior clinical fracture and a positive VFA result, the 10-year FRAX-predicted probabilities were 25.0% (95% CI, 24.2%-25.7%) for MOF and 9.3% (95% CI, 8.7%-10.0%) for hip fracture. The observed 10-year probabilities were 38.1% (95% CI, 37.0%-39.1%) for MOF and 16.4% (95% CI, 15.4%-17.4%) for hip fracture, resulting in a recalibration multiplier of 1.53 (95% CI, 1.10-1.96) for MOF and 1.76 (95% CI, 1.17-2.35) for hip fracture. Good calibration (>0.90) was confirmed using the derived multipliers in the validation cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this prognostic study suggest that FRAX underestimated fracture risk in patients with VFA-identified fractures. Simple multipliers could recover FRAX calibration in individuals with VFA-identified fractures.

Assessment of site-specific X-ray procedure codes for fracture ascertainment: a registry-based cohort study.

Site-specific X-ray procedure codes are a useful ancillary source of information for identifying fractures in healthcare administrative and claims data. INTRODUCTION: Real-world evaluation of fracture epidemiology at the population level from electronic healthcare information, such as administrative data, requires comprehensive data sources and validated case definitions. Only hip fractures are routinely hospitalized, and the identification of most osteoporosis-related fractures which are non-hospitalized fractures remains challenging. Plain X-rays (radiographs) are first-line tests for fracture diagnosis and are frequently repeated to monitor fracture healing, and claims data related to radiologic procedures are available in many healthcare systems. We hypothesized that temporal clustering in plain X-ray procedure codes might be an ancillary source of fracture data. METHODS: We identified individuals age 40 years and older in Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Registry with a fracture diagnosis (hip, forearm, humerus, clinical vertebral) before or following a BMD test. A subset underwent detailed review of X-rays to verify an acute fracture. We examined the association between fracture diagnosis and numbers of site-specific X-ray procedures. RESULTS: The registry cohort included 7793 individuals with a fracture in the previous 5 years and 8417 incident fractures. The X-ray review cohort included 167 radiologically-verified fractures. The number of site-specific X-ray codes was greater in those with vs without fracture (all P < 0.001). The number of days with site-specific X-rays was strongly associated with a fracture diagnosis (area under the curve 0.90 to 0.99 for all non-vertebral fractures, 0.66 to 0.75 for clinical vertebral fractures). There was good agreement between the date of fracture diagnosis and the first X-ray at all non-vertebral fracture sites (Spearman correlation range 0.65 to 0.99), but this was lower for clinical vertebral fractures (range 0.29 to 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Temporal clustering in site-specific X-ray procedures was associated with a corresponding fracture diagnosis in administrative medical records. Non-vertebral fracture sites were more strongly associated with X-ray procedures than clinical vertebral fractures.

Determinants of pain assessment documentation in intensive care units.

PURPOSE: The underassessment of pain is a major barrier to effective pain management, and the lack of pain assessment documentation has been associated with negative patient outcomes. This study aimed to 1) describe the contextual factors related to pain assessment and management in five Québec intensive care units (ICUs); 2) describe their pain assessment documentation practices; and 3) identify sociodemographic and clinical determinants related to pain assessment documentation. METHODS: A descriptive-correlational retrospective design was used. Sociodemographic data (i.e., age, sex), clinical data (i.e., diagnosis, mechanical ventilation, level of consciousness, severity of illness, opioids, sedatives), and pain assessments were extracted from 345 medical charts of ICU admissions from five teaching hospitals between 2017 and 2019. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were performed. RESULTS: All sites reported using the 0-10 numeric rating scale, but the implementation of a behavioural pain scale was variable across sites. A median of three documented pain assessments were performed per 24 hr, which is below the minimal recommendation of eight to 12 pain assessments per 24 hr. Overall, pain assessment was present in 70% of charts, but only 20% of opioid doses were followed by documented pain reassessment within one hour post-administration. Higher level of consciousness (ß = 0.37), using only breakthrough doses (ß = 0.24), and lower opioid doses (ß = -0.21) were significant determinants of pain assessment documentation (adjusted R2 = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Pain assessment documentation is suboptimal in ICUs, especially for patients unable to self-report or those receiving higher opioid doses. Study findings highlight the need to implement tools to optimize pain assessment and documentation.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La sous-évaluation de la douleur constitue un obstacle majeur à une gestion efficace de la douleur, et le manque de documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur a été associé à des conséquences défavorables pour les patients. Cette étude visait à : 1) décrire les facteurs contextuels liés à l'évaluation et à la gestion de la douleur dans cinq unités de soins intensifs (USI) du Québec; 2) décrire leurs pratiques de documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur; et 3) identifier les déterminants sociodémographiques et cliniques liés à la documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur. MéTHODE: Un devis de recherche rétrospectif descriptif-corrélationnel a été utilisé. Les données sociodémographiques (c.-à-d. l'âge, le sexe), les données cliniques (c.-à-d. le diagnostic, la ventilation mécanique, le niveau de conscience, la gravité de la maladie, les opioïdes, les sédatifs) et les évaluations de la douleur ont été extraites de 345 dossiers médicaux avec admissions à l'USI de cinq hôpitaux universitaires entre 2017 et 2019. Des statistiques descriptives et une régression linéaire multiple ont été effectuées. RéSULTATS: Tous les sites ont déclaré utiliser l'échelle d'évaluation numérique de 0 à 10, mais l'implantation d'une échelle de douleur comportementale variait d'un site à un autre. Une médiane de trois évaluations de douleur étaient documentées par 24 heures, ce qui est inférieur à la recommandation minimale de huit à 12 évaluations de douleur par 24 heures. Dans l'ensemble, l'évaluation de la douleur était présente dans 70 % des dossiers, mais seulement 20 % des doses d'opioïdes étaient suivies d'une réévaluation documentée de la douleur dans l'heure suivant leur'administration. Un niveau de conscience plus élevé (ß = 0,37), l'utilisation exclusive d'entredoses d'opioïdes pour les percées de douleur (ß = 0,24) et des doses d'opioïdes plus faibles (ß = -0,21) ont constitué les déterminants significatifs dans la documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur (R2 ajusté = 0,25). CONCLUSION: La documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur est sous-optimale dans les USI, en particulier pour les patients incapables de s'exprimer ou ceux qui reçoivent des doses plus élevées d'opioïdes. Les résultats de cette étude soulignent l'importance d'implanter des outils pour optimiser l'évaluation et la documentation de la douleur.

Patient Healthcare Trajectory and its Impact on the Cost-Effectiveness of Fracture Liaison Services.

This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) with a systematic follow-up according to patients' follow-up compliance trajectories. The Lucky Bone™ FLS is a prospective cohort study conducted on women and men (≥40 years) with fragility fractures. Dedicated personnel of the program identified fractures, investigated, treated, and followed patients systematically over 2 years. Groups of follow-up compliance trajectories were identified, and Markov decision models were used to assess the cost-utility of each follow-up trajectory group compared to usual care. A lifetime horizon from the perspective of the healthcare payer was modeled. Costs were converted to 2018 Canadian dollars and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were measured. Costs and benefits were discounted at 1.5%. A total of 532 participants were followed in the FLS (86% women, mean age of 63 years). Three trajectories were predicted and interpreted; the high followers (HFs, 48.4%), intermediate followers (IFs, 28.1%), and low followers (LFs, 23.5%). The costs of the interventions per patient varied between $300 and $446 for 2 years, according to the follow-up trajectory. The FLS had higher investigation, treatment, and persistence rates compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, the ICURs for the HF, IF, and LF trajectory groups were $4250, $21,900, and $72,800 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, respectively ($9000 per QALY gained for the overall FLS). Sensitivity analyses showed that the HF and IF trajectory groups, as well as the entire FLS, were cost-effective in >67% of simulations with respect to usual care. In summary, these results suggest that a high-intensity FLS with a systematic 2-year follow-up can be cost-effective, especially when patients attend follow-up visits. They also highlight the importance of understanding the behaviors and factors that surround follow-up compliance over time as secondary prevention means that they are at high risk of re-fracture. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Impact of spine-hip discordance on fracture risk assessment and treatment qualification in Canada: the Manitoba BMD registry.

In 50,330 women undergoing bone mineral density (BMD) testing, adjusting FRAX® major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) probability for T-score differences between lumbar spine and femoral neck had a small impact on treatment qualification, with only 1.1% reclassified from below to above the 20% MOF intervention threshold. PURPOSE: Discordance between lumbar spine and femoral neck T-score measurements are frequently encountered in clinical practice. The FRAX tool accepts femoral neck BMD as an optional input but does not consider lumbar spine BMD, though adjustments based upon T-score difference have been proposed. This analysis was undertaken to examine change in treatment qualification using the lumbar spine T-score adjustment to FRAX assuming an intervention threshold of 20% MOF. METHODS: Women aged > 50 years with baseline FRAX MOF probability computed with femoral neck BMD of ≥ 20% but without previous high-risk fracture or high-risk medication use were identified in the province of Manitoba BMD registry. If lumbar spine T-score was lower than the femoral neck T-score, MOF probability was recalculated, and treatment qualification, reassessed. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 50,300 women (mean age 64.2 ± 8.6 years). During mean follow-up of 9.5 years, 4550 sustained incident MOF. The baseline mean T-score difference (femoral neck minus lumbar spine) was - 0.2 ± 1.1. Recalculated MOF probability using the T-score difference significantly improved overall net reclassification index for incident MOF prediction (+ 0.017, p < 0.001). A total of 561 (1.1%) of these women were reclassified from below to above 20% MOF probability based upon the T-score difference. No individuals with MOF probability less than 15% were reclassified to the higher risk category. Risk reclassification increased with lower lumbar spine T-score (15.6% reclassification for lumbar spine T-score of - 3.5 or lower, 4.0% of the study population) and larger T-score differences (9.7% reclassification for T-score difference of 2.5 or more, < 1% of the study population). CONCLUSIONS: Very few women showed risk reclassification based upon adjusting FRAX MOF probability for lumbar spine T-score. Reclassification occurred only in those with baseline MOF probability > 15%.

Correction to: New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment.

The article, "New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports.

New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Identifying individuals at high fracture risk can be used to target those likely to derive the greatest benefit from treatment. This narrative review examines recent developments in using specific risk factors used to assess fracture risk, with a focus on publications in the last 3 years. RECENT FINDINGS: There is expanding evidence for the recognition of individual clinical risk factors and clinical use of composite scores in the general population. Unfortunately, enthusiasm is dampened by three pragmatic randomized trials that raise questions about the effectiveness of widespread population screening using clinical fracture prediction tools given suboptimal participation and adherence. There have been refinements in risk assessment in special populations: men, patients with diabetes, and secondary causes of osteoporosis. New evidence supports the value of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), high resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT), opportunistic screening using CT, skeletal strength assessment with finite element analysis (FEA), and trabecular bone score (TBS). The last 3 years have seen important developments in the area of fracture risk assessment, both in the research setting and translation to clinical practice. The next challenge will be incorporating these advances into routine work flows that can improve the identification of high risk individuals at the population level and meaningfully impact the ongoing crisis in osteoporosis management.

Vertebral Fracture Assessment Increases Use of Pharmacologic Therapy for Fracture Prevention in Clinical Practice.

The impact of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) on lateral spine images in clinical practice on subsequent patient use of fracture prevention medication is unknown. Our objective was to determine the association of prevalent vertebral fracture identified on bone density lateral spine images (positive VFA) with subsequent use of fracture prevention therapy in usual clinical practice, using the Manitoba Bone Density Program database prospective observational cohort. Since 2010, targeted VFA imaging has been done at the time of bone densitometry in Manitoba for 21% of women and men meeting criteria based on age, bone mineral density (BMD), height loss, and glucocorticoid use. Among 6652 treatment-naive individuals with at least 90 days follow-up who had VFA imaging, 923 (13.9%) had one or more definite vertebral fractures identified using a modified algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method. For those with a positive VFA, their bone density reports stated the patient was at high risk of subsequent fracture and qualified for fracture prevention therapy. Subsequent osteoporosis treatment initiated within the next 12 months was identified using population-based pharmacy data. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of positive VFA with subsequent prescription (Rx), compared to negative VFA. Fracture prevention medication was started by 2127 (32%) individuals, 52.3% with positive versus 28.4% with negative VFA (p value <0.001). This association was substantially stronger in those designated (before VFA results were known) to have low or moderate fracture risk compared to high fracture risk (interaction p value <0.001), and in those with osteopenia (OR 4.51; 95% CI, 3.48 to 5.85) compared to those with osteoporosis by BMD criteria (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.08, interaction p value <0.001). Targeted VFA imaging at the time of bone densitometry substantially improves identification of those at high fracture risk and fracture prevention medication use among those with prevalent vertebral fracture. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

A 51-item calcium-focused food frequency questionnaire is a reliable tool to assess dietary calcium intake in postmenopausal women.

Given the lack in a valid biomarker to assess dietary calcium intake (dCai), reproducible estimation of usual dCai is crucial for better understanding of its interaction with health outcomes in specific populations. This study tested the hypothesis that a calcium-focused food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) may be used to estimate dCai of women ≥50 years residing in a multicultural environment (Montreal, Canada). One hundred and eight women (age, 63.1±7.7 years; 98% postmenopausal) completed the FFQ twice and 4 nonconsecutive 24-hour recalls (24HRs) over 1 month. Medians of dCai were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Reproducibility and relative validity of the FFQ were assessed by Spearman correlation (rs) and Cohen's weighted kappa (κw). Agreement was further assessed by cross-classification by quartiles, Bland-Altman plot, and sensitivity and specificity analyses. The median (interquartile range) dCai estimated by the FFQ and 24HRs were 723 (524-1033) mg/d and 854 (666-1068) mg/d, respectively (P<.001). The FFQs had a strong correlation (rs=0.72, P<.001) and moderate agreement (κw=0.55). The FFQ and 24HRs were moderately correlated (rs=0.65, P<.001). Cross-classification showed moderate agreement (κw=0.42), with 85% of the participants classified into identical or contiguous quartiles and 2.8% into extreme opposite quartiles. According to the Bland-Altman plot, the FFQ underestimated dCai with a bias of 99 mg/d (95% limits of agreement, -677 to +480 mg/d). Sensitivity and specificity of identifying intakes <1000 mg/d were 90% and 57%, respectively. This FFQ is a useful tool to discriminate dCai <600 and ≥1000 mg/d in postmenopausal women and to rank dCai in epidemiological studies.

Longer Duration of Diabetes Strongly Impacts Fracture Risk Assessment: The Manitoba BMD Cohort.

CONTEXT: Type 2 diabetes is associated with a higher risk for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture than predicted by the World Health Organization fracture risk assessment (FRAX) tool. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the impact of diabetes duration on fracture risk. METHODS: Using a clinical dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry registry linked with the Manitoba administrative databases, we identified all women age 40 years or older with 10 or more years of prior health care coverage undergoing hip dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measurements (1996-2013). Incident MOF and incident hip fractures were each studied over 7 years. Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for FRAX (FRAX adjusted) and then FRAX plus comorbidity, falls, osteoporosis therapy, or insulin (fully adjusted). FRAX calibration was assessed comparing observed vs predicted probabilities. RESULTS: There were 49 098 women without and 8840 women with diabetes (31.4% >10 y duration; 20.1% 5-10 y; 23.7% <5 y; 24.8% new onset). In FRAX-adjusted analyses, only duration longer than 10 years was associated with a higher risk for MOF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-1.66), and this was similar in the fully adjusted models (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.17-1.54). In contrast, a higher risk for hip fracture was seen for all durations in a dose-dependent fashion (eg, FRAX adjusted HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.71-2.59 for duration >10 y vs HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.03-1.69 for new onset). FRAX significantly underestimated the MOF risk (calibration ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.39) and hip fracture risk (1.93, 95% CI 1.50-2.35) in those with a diabetes duration longer than 10 years. CONCLUSION: Diabetes is a FRAX-independent risk factor for MOF only in women with a long duration of diabetes, but diabetes increases hip fracture risk, regardless of duration. Those with diabetes longer than 10 years are at particularly high risk of fracture, and this elevated risk is currently underestimated by FRAX.

Assessment of femur geometrical parameters using EOS™ imaging technology in patients with atypical femur fractures; preliminary results.

Atypical femur fractures (AFF) arise in the subtrochanteric and diaphyseal regions. Because of this unique distribution, we hypothesized that patients with AFF demonstrate specific geometrical variations of their lower limb whereby baseline tensile forces applied to the lateral cortex are higher and might favor the appearance of these rare stress fractures, when exposed to bisphosphonates. Using the low irradiation 2D-3D X-ray scanner EOS™ imaging technology we aimed to characterize and compare femur geometric parameters between women who sustained bisphosphonate-associated AFF and those who had experienced similar duration of exposure to bisphosphonates but did not sustain fractures. Conditional logistic regression models were constructed to estimate the association between selected geometric parameters and the occurrence of AFF. We identified 16 Caucasian women with AFF and recruited 16 ethnicity-, sex-, age-, height- and cumulative bisphosphonate exposure-matched controls from local osteoporosis clinics. Compared to controls, those with AFF had more lateral femur bowing (-3.2° SD [3.4] versus -0.8° SD [1.9] p=0.02). In regression analysis, lateral femur bowing was associated with the risk of AFF (aOR 1.54; 95% CI 1.04-2.28, p=0.03). Women who sustained a subtrochanteric AFF demonstrated a lesser femoral neck shaft angle (varus geometry) than those with a fracture at a diaphyseal site (121.9 [3.6]° versus 127.6 [7.2]°, p=0.07), whereas femur bowing was more prominent in those with a diaphyseal fracture compared to those with a subtrochanteric fracture (-4.3 [3.2]° versus -0.9 [2.7]°, p=0.07). Our analyses support that subjects with AFF exhibit femoral geometry parameters that result in higher tensile mechanical load on the lateral femur. This may play a critical role in the pathogenesis of AFF and requires further evaluation in a larger size population.

Osteoporosis epidemiology 2013: implications for diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the recently published studies that provide insights into the changing epidemiology of osteoporosis and fractures. RECENT FINDINGS: The main themes reviewed are fracture outcomes; trends in fractures rates; fracture risk assessment and monitoring; atypical femoral fractures; male osteoporosis; falls and physical activity; and sarcopenia, obesity, and metabolic syndrome. SUMMARY: Osteoporotic fractures were found to have long-term consequences on excess mortality (10 years) and economic costs (5 years). The large burden of nonhip nonvertebral fractures has been underestimated. Divergent (but mostly declining) trends in fracture rates were confirmed in several cohorts from around the world. This has significant implications for healthcare planners and clinicians responsible for the care of individuals with osteoporosis, and also impacts on the calibration of fracture prediction tools. Although fracture prediction tools differ in their complexity, performance characteristics are similar when applied to the general population. Large, high-quality comparative studies with different case mixes are needed. Fracture probability does not appear to be responsive enough to support goal-directed treatment at this time. A consensus on the diagnosis of osteoporosis in men has emerged, based upon the same absolute bone density cutoff for both men and women. Finally, a plethora of new data highlight the importance of falls, physical activity, and body composition as contributors to skeletal health.

Fracture risk assessment in long-term care: a survey of long-term care physicians.

BACKGROUND: The majority of frail elderly who live in long-term care (LTC) are not treated for osteoporosis despite their high risk for fragility fractures. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis provide guidance for the management of individuals 50 years and older at risk for fractures, however, they cannot benefit LTC residents if physicians perceive barriers to their application. Our objectives are to explore current practices to fracture risk assessment by LTC physicians and describe barriers to applying the recently published Osteoporosis Canada practice guidelines for fracture assessment and prevention in LTC. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with the Ontario Long-Term Care Physicians Association using an online questionnaire. The survey included questions that addressed members' attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour with respect to fracture risk assessment in LTC. Closed-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic framework analysis for open-ended responses. RESULTS: We contacted 347 LTC physicians; 25% submitted completed surveys (81% men, mean age 60 (Standard Deviation [SD] 11) years, average 32 [SD 11] years in practice). Of the surveyed physicians, 87% considered prevention of fragility fractures to be important, but a minority (34%) reported using validated fracture risk assessment tools, while 33% did not use any. Clinical risk factors recommended by the OC guidelines for assessing fracture risk considered applicable included; glucocorticoid use (99%), fall history (93%), age (92%), and fracture history (91%). Recommended clinical measurements considered applicable included: weight (84%), thyroid-stimulating hormone (78%) and creatinine (73%) measurements, height (61%), and Get-Up-and-Go test (60%). Perceived barriers to assessing fracture risk included difficulty acquiring necessary information, lack of access to tests (bone mineral density, x-rays) or obtaining medical history; resource constraints, and a sentiment that assessing fracture risk is futile in this population because of short life expectancy and polypharmacy. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers to fracture risk assessment and osteoporosis management in LTC have not changed recently, contributing in part to the ongoing care gap in osteoporosis management. Our findings highlight the importance to adapt guidelines to be applicable to the LTC environment, and to develop partnerships with stakeholders to facilitate their use in clinical practice.

Direct costs of fractures in Canada and trends 1996-2006: a population-based cost-of-illness analysis.

Cost-of-illness (COI) analysis is used to evaluate the economic burden of illness in terms of health care resource (HCR) consumption. We used the Population Health Research Data Repository for Manitoba, Canada, to identify HCR costs associated with 33,887 fracture cases (22,953 women and 10,934 men) aged 50 years and older that occurred over a 10-year period (1996-2006) and 101,661 matched control individuals (68,859 women and 32,802 men). Costs (in 2006 Canadian dollars) were estimated for the year before and after fracture, and the change (incremental cost) was modeled using quantile regression analysis to adjust for baseline covariates and to study temporal trends. The greatest total incremental costs were associated with hip fractures (median $16,171 in women and $13,111 for men), followed by spine fractures ($8,345 in women and $6,267 in men). The lowest costs were associated with wrist fractures ($663 in women and $764 in men). Costs for all fracture types were greater in older individuals (p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained with regression-based adjustment for baseline factors. Some costs showed a slight increase over the 10 years. The largest temporal increase in women was for hip fracture ($13 per year, 95% CI $6-$21, p < 0.001) and in men was for humerus fracture ($11 per year, 95% CI $3-$19, p = 0.007). At the population level, hip fractures were responsible for the largest proportion of the costs after age 80, but the other fractures were more important prior to age 80. We found that there are large incremental health care costs associated with incident fractures in Canada. Identifying COI from HCR use offers a cost baseline for measuring the effects of evidence-based guidelines implementation.