Cost-Utility Analysis of the Ontario Fracture Screening and Prevention Program.

BACKGROUND: The Fracture Screening and Prevention Program (FSPP), a fracture liaison service (FLS), was implemented in the province of Ontario, Canada, in 2007 to prevent recurrent fragility fractures and to improve post-fracture care. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the current model of the FSPP compared with usual care (no program) from the perspective of the universal public health-care payer (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [MOHLTC]), over the lifetime of older adults who presented with a fragility fracture of the proximal part of the femur, the proximal part of the humerus, or the distal part of the radius and were not taking medications to prevent or slow bone loss and reduce the risk of fracture (bone active medications). METHODS: We developed a state-transition (Markov) model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the FSPP in comparison with usual care. The model simulated a cohort of patients with a fragility fracture starting at 71 years of age. Model parameters were obtained from published literature and from the FSPP. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2018 Canadian dollars were predicted over a lifetime horizon using a 1.5% annual discount rate. Health outcomes included subsequent proximal femoral, vertebral, proximal humeral, and distal radial fractures. Scenario and subgroup analyses were reported. RESULTS: The FSPP had lower expected costs ($277 less) and higher expected effectiveness (by 0.018 QALY) than usual care over the lifetime horizon. Ninety-four percent of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) demonstrated lower costs and higher effectiveness of the FSPP. CONCLUSIONS: The FSPP appears to be cost-effective compared with usual care over a lifetime for patients with fragility fracture. This information may help to quantify the value of the FSPP and to assist policy-makers in deciding whether to expand the FSPP to additional hospitals or to initiate similar programs where none exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Factors associated with screening positive for high falls risk in fragility fracture patients: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to report the prevalence of fragility fracture patients who were screened at high falls risk using a large provincial database, and to determine the characteristics associated with being screened at high falls risk. METHODS: The study population included fragility fracture patients 50+ years of age who were screened at 35 hospital fracture clinics in Ontario over a 3.5 year period. The outcome was based on two screening questions measuring the risk of falling, both adapted from the STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths & Injuries) tool. Multivariable associations of sociodemographic, fracture-related, and health-related characteristics were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the sample, 9735 (44.5%) patients were classified as being at high falls risk, and 12,089 (55.3%) were not. In the multivariable logistic regression, being 80+ years of age (vs. 50-64 years of age), non-community dwelling (vs. living with spouse, family member, roommate), having a mental/physical impairment (vs. none), and taking multiple medications, were all strongly associated with being screened at high falls risk. CONCLUSIONS: Living in a non-community dwelling and taking 4+ medications were the variables most strongly associated with being screened at high falls risk. These are potentially modifiable characteristics that should be considered when assessing falls risk in fragility fracture patients, and particularly when designing interventions for preventing subsequent falls. Ongoing work to address the higher risk of falls in the fragility fracture population is warranted.

Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Osteoporosis Treatment Associated with Improved Outcomes: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and address patient-reported barriers in osteoporosis care after a fracture. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of fragility fracture patients over 50 years of age was seen in a provincewide fracture liaison service. Followup interviews were done at 6 months for osteoporosis care indicators. Univariate statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics, osteoporosis-related outcomes, and reasons cited for not achieving them. Two phases of this program were compared (Phase I: education and communication, and Phase II: risk assessment education and communication). Phase II was further divided into those who fully participated and those who declined. RESULTS: Phase I (n = 3997) had lower testing and treatment rates than Phase II (n = 1363). Rates were highest in those confirmed as having participated in Phase II (n = 569). Phase II nonparticipants (n = 794) had results as in Phase I. In Phase I, the main patient-reported barriers for not visiting their physician or not having a bone mineral density (BMD) test were patient- and physician-oriented (e.g., being instructed by their physician to not have the BMD test). In Phase II, BMD testing was part of the program, thus the main barriers were around treatment choices. Phase II eligible nonparticipants experienced many of the same barriers as Phase I patients, with lower BMD testing rates (54.9% and 65.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Evaluating and addressing barriers to guideline implementation reduced those barriers and was associated with higher downstream treatment rates. Monitoring barriers in a program like this provides useful insights for program changes and research interventions.

Improvements in osteoporosis testing and care are found following the wide scale implementation of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening Program: An interrupted time series analysis.

We evaluated a system-wide impact of a health intervention to improve treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture. The intervention consisted of assigning a screening coordinator to selected fracture clinics to identify, educate, and follow up with fragility fracture patients and inform their physicians of the need to evaluate bone health. Thirty-seven hospitals in the province of Ontario (Canada) were assigned a screening coordinator. Twenty-three similar hospitals were control sites. All hospitals had orthopedic services and handled moderate-to-higher volumes of fracture patients. Administrative health data were used to evaluate the impact of the intervention.Fragility fracture patients (≥50 years; hip, humerus, forearm, spine, or pelvis fracture) were identified from administrative health records. Cases were fractures treated at 1 of the 37 hospitals assigned a coordinator. Controls were the same types of fractures at the control sites. Data were assembled for 20 quarters before and 10 quarters after the implementation (from January 2002 to March 2010). To test for a shift in trends, we employed an interrupted time series analysis-a study design used to evaluate the longitudinal effects of interventions, through regression modelling. The primary outcome measure was bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Osteoporosis medication initiation and persistence rates were secondary outcomes in a subset of patients ≥66 years of age.A total of 147,071 patients were used in the analysis. BMD testing rates increased from 17.0% pre-intervention to 20.9% post-intervention at intervention sites (P < .01) compared with no change at control sites (14.9% and 14.9%, P = .33). Medication initiation improved significantly at intervention sites (21.6-23.97%; P = .02) but not at control sites (17.5-18.5%; P = .27). Persistence with bisphosphonates decreased at all sites, from 59.9% to 56.4% at intervention sites (P = .02) and more so from 62.3% to 54.2% at control sites (P < .01) using 50% proportion of days covered (PDC 50).Significant improvements in BMD testing and treatment initiation were observed after the initiation of a coordinator-based screening program to improve osteoporosis management following fragility fracture.

Comparison of CAROC and FRAX in Fragility Fracture Patients: Agreement, Clinical Utility, and Implications for Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the level of agreement between 2 fracture risk assessment tools [Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) and Canadian Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX)] when applied within the context of the Canadian guidelines, in a population of fragility fracture patients. METHODS: The sample consisted of 135 treatment-naive fragility fracture patients aged 50+ years and screened as part of an osteoporosis (OP) program at an urban hospital. Ten-year probabilities of future major osteoporotic fractures were calculated using the FRAX and CAROC. We also integrated additional qualifiers from the 2010 Canadian guidelines that place hip, spine, and multiple fractures at high risk regardless. A quadratic weighted κ (Kw) and 95% CI were calculated to estimate the chance corrected agreement between the risk assessment tools. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with concordance. RESULTS: Among patients with fragility fractures, the agreement between CAROC and FRAX was Kw = 0.64 (95% CI 0.58-0.71), with 45 of 135 cases in the cells reflecting disagreement. Younger persons and males were more likely to be found in discordant cells. CONCLUSION: The level of agreement between 2 commonly used fracture risk assessment tools was not as high in the patients with fragility fractures as it was in general community-based samples. Our results suggest discordance is found in less-typical patients with OP who need more consistency in messaging and direction. Users of these fracture risk tools should be aware of the potential for discordance and note differences in risk classifications that may affect treatment decisions.

Factors predictive of the perceived osteoporosis-fracture link in fragility fracture patients.

OBJECTIVE: Given the asymptomatic nature of osteoporosis, a fragility fracture provides an opportunity to make the issue of osteoporosis relevant to patients. Patients who link their fragility fracture with osteoporosis are more likely to initiate osteoporosis treatment, yet to date, we know little about who is likely to make this link. This study examined whether demographic, health, and osteoporosis belief factors predicted a perceived link between a fragility fracture and osteoporosis. STUDY DESIGN: This longitudinal cohort study analyzed baseline and follow up data collected as part of a provincial osteoporosis screening initiative targeting fragility fracture patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between hypothesized predictors and the outcome. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient perception of the osteoporosis-fracture link at follow up. RESULTS: At baseline, 93% (1615/1735) of patients did not believe their fracture could have been caused by osteoporosis. Of these, only 8.2% changed this perception at follow up. Adjusted analyses showed that baseline characteristics associated with making the osteoporosis-fracture link at follow up were: a previous fracture (odds ratio (OR) 1.7, confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.6), perception of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy benefits OR 1.2 (CI 1.0-1.5), diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis OR 2.6 (CI 1.4-4.9) and the perception of bones as "thin" OR 8.2 (CI 5.1-13.1). CONCLUSION: These results shed more light on patient-level barriers to osteoporosis management following an osteoporosis educational programme. They may be used to identify patients less likely to make the link between their fracture and osteoporosis and to inform interventions for this patient group.

Patient perceptions of the path to osteoporosis care following a fragility fracture.

Coordinator-based osteoporosis (OP) screening programs for fragility-fracture patients in orthopedic environments improve rates of OP testing and care, but there are still gaps in care. The purpose of this study was to understand the process by which patients decided whether to proceed with OP testing or care within these programs. Twenty-four fragility-fracture patients in the OP screening program at a large, urban, university hospital in Canada participated in one of five focus groups. Focus group transcripts were sorted and coded. Links between themes were developed to generate a description of the process leading to successful initiation of OP care after a fragility fracture. To initiate OP testing and care, patients had to both comprehend the link between their fragility fracture and OP, and make an action-oriented appraisal of what action to take. Several modifiable facilitators and barriers influenced the process between screening and undergoing OP testing and initiating treatment.

'If it was osteoporosis, I would have really hurt myself.' Ambiguity about osteoporosis and osteoporosis care despite a screening programme to educate fragility fracture patients.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Behaviour change models suggest that people need clear information about their susceptibility to disease and knowledge of treatment recommendations in order to change their behaviour. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine fracture patients' understanding of osteoporosis (OP) and OP care after being screened for, and educated about, OP in a fracture clinic. METHODS: We conducted five focus groups with 24 patients (18 women, six men) aged 47-80 years old who were screened for OP through an urban fracture clinic. Participants were asked about their awareness of OP and their status of bone mineral density (BMD) testing and OP treatment. RESULTS: Twenty participants vocalized at least one expression of ambiguity regarding OP and/or treatment recommendations conveyed by the screening programme staff. Participants were ambiguous about the cause of their fracture, the BMD test process and results, and the presentation of OP. They were also ambiguous about the amount and type of medication and supplements recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a standardized screening programme in which OP was addressed in fragility fracture patients, ambiguity about diagnosis, testing and treatment were described. Efforts to clarify information relayed to fracture patients about their condition and recommended care need to extend beyond the fracture clinic so that health care providers can promote long-term adherence to these recommendations.