Epidemiology of forearm fractures in women and men in Norway 2008-2019.

The purpose of this paper is to describe rates of forearm fractures in adults in Norway 2008-2019. Incidence rate of distal forearm fractures declined over time in both sexes. Forearm fracture constitute a significant health burden and prevention strategies are needed. PURPOSE: To assess age- and sex-specific incidence rates, and time trends for forearm fractures in Norway, and compare these with incidence rates in other Nordic countries. METHODS: Data on all patients aged 20-107 years with forearm fractures treated in Norwegian hospitals from 2008 to 2019 was retrieved from the Norwegian Patient Registry. Fractures were identified based on International Classification of Disease 10th revision code S52. Age- and sex-specific incidence rates and changes in incidence rates were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 181,784 forearm fractures in 45,628,418 person-years. Mean annual forearm fracture incidence rates per 100,000 person-years were 398 (95% CI 390-407) for all, 565 (95% CI 550-580) for women, and 231 (95% CI 228-234) for men above 20 years. Mean annual number of forearm fractures was 15,148 (95% CI 14,575-15,722). From 2008 to 2019, age-adjusted total incidence rates of forearm fractures S52 diagnoses declined by 3.5% (incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.997 (95% CI 0.994-0.999)) in men. The corresponding decline in women was not significant (IRR: 0.999 (95% CI 0.997-1.002)). In the same period, the age-adjusted incidence rates of distal forearm fractures declined by 7.0% in men (IRR = 0.930; 95% CI 0.886-0.965) and 4.7% in women (IRR = 0.953; 95% CI 0.919-0.976). The incidence rates of distal forearm fractures were similar to rates in Sweden and Finland. CONCLUSION: Age-adjusted incidence rates of distal forearm fractures in both sexes declined over time.

Validation of forearm fracture diagnoses in administrative patient registers.

The validity of forearm fracture diagnoses recorded in five Norwegian hospitals was investigated using image reports and medical records as gold standard. A relatively high completeness and correctness of the diagnoses was found. Algorithms used to define forearm fractures in administrative data should depend on study purpose. PURPOSE: In Norway, forearm fractures are routinely recorded in the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR). However, these data have not been validated. Data from patient administrative systems (PAS) at hospitals are sent unabridged to NPR. By using data from PAS, we aimed to examine (1) the validity of the forearm fracture diagnoses and (2) the usefulness of washout periods, follow-up codes, and procedure codes to define incident forearm fracture cases. METHODS: This hospital-based validation study included women and men aged ≥ 19 years referred to five hospitals for treatment of a forearm fracture during selected periods in 2015. Administrative data for the ICD-10 forearm fracture code S52 (with all subgroups) in PAS and the medical records were reviewed. X-ray and computed tomography (CT) reports from examinations of forearms were reviewed independently and linked to the data from PAS. Sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated using image reports and/or review of medical records as gold standard. RESULTS: Among the 8482 reviewed image reports and medical records, 624 patients were identified with an incident forearm fracture during the study period. The sensitivity of PAS registrations was 90.4% (95% CI: 87.8-92.6). The PPV increased from 73.9% (95% CI: 70.6-77.0) in crude data to 90.5% (95% CI: 88.0-92.7) when using a washout period of 6 months. Using procedure codes and follow-up codes in addition to 6-months washout increased the PPV to 94.0%, but the sensitivity fell to 69.0%. CONCLUSION: A relatively high sensitivity of forearm fracture diagnoses was found in PAS. PPV varied depending on the algorithms used to define cases. Choice of algorithm should therefore depend on study purposes. The results give useful measures of forearm fracture diagnoses from administrative patient registers. Depending on local coding practices and treatment pathways, we infer that the findings are relevant to other fracture diagnoses and registers.

Effect of a Fracture Liaison Service on the Rate of Subsequent Fracture Among Patients With a Fragility Fracture in the Norwegian Capture the Fracture Initiative (NoFRACT): A Trial Protocol.

Importance: Fragility fracture is a major health issue because of the accompanying morbidity, mortality, and financial cost. Despite the high cost to society and personal cost to affected individuals, secondary fracture prevention is suboptimal in Norway, mainly because most patients with osteoporotic fractures do not receive treatment with antiosteoporotic drugs after fracture repair. Objectives: To improve secondary fracture prevention by introducing a standardized intervention program and to investigate the effect of the program on the rate of subsequent fractures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Trial protocol of the Norwegian Capture the Fracture Initiative (NoFRACT), an ongoing, stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial in 7 hospitals in Norway. The participating hospitals were cluster randomized to an intervention starting date: May 1, 2015; September 1, 2015; and January 1, 2016. Follow-up is through December 31, 2019. The outcome data were merged from national registries of women and men 50 years and older with a recent fragility fracture treated at 1 of the 7 hospitals. Discussion: The NoFRACT trial is intended to enroll 82 000 patients (intervention period, 26 000 patients; control period, 56 000 patients), of whom 23 578 are currently enrolled by January 2018. Interventions include a standardized program for identification, assessment, and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with a fragility fracture that is led by a trained coordinating nurse. The primary outcome is rate of subsequent fracture (per 10 000 person-years) based on national registry data. Outcomes before (2008-2015; control period) and after (2015-2019; intervention period) the intervention will be compared, and each hospital will act as its own control. Use of outcomes from national registry data means that all patients are included in the analysis regardless of whether they are exposed to the intervention (intention to treat). A sensitivity analysis with a transition window will be performed to mitigate possible within-cluster contamination. Results: Results are planned to be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national, and international conferences. Conclusions: By introducing a standardized intervention program for assessment and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with fragility fractures, we expect to document reduced rates of subsequent fractures and fracture-related mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02536898.