Perspectives of patients with depression and chronic pain about bone health after a fragility fracture: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Compromised bone health is often associated with depression and chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: To examine: (1) the experience of existing depression and chronic nonfracture pain in patients with a fragility fracture; and (2) the effects of the fracture on depression and pain. DESIGN: A phenomenological study guided by Giorgi's analytical procedures. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fracture patients who reported taking prescription medication for one or more comorbidities, excluding compromised bone health. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Patients were interviewed within 6 weeks of their fracture, and 1 year later. Interview questions addressed the recent fracture and patients' experience with bone health and their other health conditions, such as depression and chronic pain, including the medications taken for these conditions. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (5 men, 21 women) aged 45-84 years old with hip (n = 5) and nonhip (n = 21) fractures were recruited. Twenty-one participants reported depression and/or chronic nonfracture pain, of which seven reported having both depression and chronic pain. Two themes were consistent, based on our analysis: (1) depression and chronic pain overshadowed attention to bone health; and (2) the fracture exacerbated reported experiences of existing depression and chronic pain. CONCLUSION: Experiences with depression and pain take priority over bone health and may worsen as a result of the fracture. Health care providers treating fragility fractures might ask patients about depression and pain and take appropriate steps to address patients' more general emotional and physical state. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: A patient representative was involved in the study conception, data interpretation and manuscript writing.

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.

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.

Fracture Prevention in the Orthopaedic Environment: Outcomes of a Coordinator-Based Fracture Liaison Service.

BACKGROUND: Fracture liaison services focus on secondary fracture prevention by identifying patients at risk for future fracture and initiating appropriate evaluation, risk assessment, education, and therapeutic intervention. This study describes key clinical outcomes including bone mineral densitometry, physician assessment, and pharmacotherapy initiation in pharmacotherapy-naïve patients undergoing treatment for fragility fracture in a Canadian fracture liaison service. METHODS: We determined rates of post-fracture investigation and treatment for inpatients and outpatients with a fragility fracture seen in a coordinator-based fracture liaison service at an urban university trauma hospital. The program identified distal radial, proximal femoral, proximal humeral, and vertebral fragility fractures in female patients ≥40 years of age and male patients ≥50 years of age and provided education, bone mineral densitometry, inpatient consultation or outpatient specialist or primary care physician referral for bone health management, and documented patient follow-up. RESULTS: The 2,191 patients with a fragility fracture were not taking anti-osteoporosis pharmacotherapy at the time of identification (862 inpatients and 1,329 outpatients). Eighty-four percent of inpatients and 85% of outpatients completed a bone mineral densitometry as recommended. Fifty-two percent of patients with proximal femoral fracture, 29% of patients with vertebral fracture, 26% of patients with proximal humeral fracture, and 20% of patients with distal radial fracture had osteoporosis confirmed on the basis of a bone mineral densitometry T-score of ≤-2.5 at the femoral neck or L1 to L4. Eighty-five percent of inpatients and 79% of outpatients referred for bone health management were assessed by a specialist or primary care physician. Of the patients who attended their appointments, 73% of inpatients and 52% of outpatients received a prescription for anti-osteoporosis medication. CONCLUSIONS: A high rate of education, evaluation, and pharmacological treatment, if indicated, can be achieved through a coordinator-facilitated fracture liaison service program. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Fracture prevention programs are currently engaged in establishing and modifying fracture liaison services in a quest for practical and effective models. The program described in this article exemplifies a coordinator-based model that produced good outcomes.

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.

Key outcomes are usually not reported in published fracture secondary prevention programs: results of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: A secondary analysis of a systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis (OP) investigation and treatment was conducted to examine reported key outcomes: (1) the cost of the intervention; (2) the proportion of patients taking OP medication beyond 6 months of the intervention; and (3) the proportion of patients who re-fractured. METHODS: Fifty-seven articles reporting on 54 studies (64 interventions) from 11 countries were included. Intervention studies to improve OP management were eligible if they were conducted in an orthopedic setting and included primary data on ≥20 patients presenting with a hip fracture or any fragility fracture. To compare outcome data across all interventions regardless of study design, an equated proportion (EP) using a denominator based on the intention-to-treat principle was derived. Whether a cost analysis had been conducted, the EP of patients who were taking medication beyond 6 months of the intervention, and the EP of patients who re-fractured during the study period were documented. RESULTS: Of the 54 studies, 2 reported a cost analysis and demonstrated that the interventions were at least cost-effective. The EP for medication use beyond 6 months of the intervention ranged from 17 to 56% for four studies. The EP for re-fracture ranged from 0 to 5% for four studies. CONCLUSION: Most interventions did not report key outcomes. In addition, authors used varying time frames for re-fracture and medication use, making direct comparisons impossible. Authors should consider including intervention costs, medication use beyond 6 months of the intervention, and re-fracture data in future fracture secondary prevention programs.

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.

Secondary causes of osteoporosis in fracture patients.

OBJECTIVE: Identification and treatment of osteoporosis in the fragility fracture population and interventions to reduce the risk of future fracture are improving in orthopaedic practice. This study investigated the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency and other secondary causes of low bone density in patients who have sustained a fragility fracture and were referred from fracture clinic to a metabolic bone disease clinic (MBDC) for further assessment. DESIGN: Retrospective chart audit. SETTING: University hospital fracture clinic. PATIENTS: Three hundred ninety-nine patients referred from the orthopaedic division to the MBDC over a 3-year period. INTERVENTION: A standardized chart audit form was developed, and electronic charts were retrospectively audited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Secondary causes of osteoporosis and routine blood test results. RESULTS: Three hundred eight of 399 patients had blood investigations completed. A total of 98 patients (32%) had 125 secondary causes of osteoporosis other than vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency recorded in their electronic chart, including medication use, premature ovarian failure, hypogonadism, smoking, excessive alcohol use, renal impairment, gastrointestinal conditions, and endocrine conditions. Mean serum vitamin D level was 69.0 nmol/L in 83 men and 75.4 nmol/L in 186 women. Serum vitamin D levels were deficient at ≤25 nmol/L in 7 patients, insufficient at 26-74 nmol/L in 137 patients, and sufficient at ≥75 nmol/L in 125 patients. Investigation of causes of secondary osteoporosis can inform and influence specific treatment regimens. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of patients sustaining a fragility fracture and referred to the MBDC were vitamin D insufficient or deficient, and nearly one-third had a secondary cause of osteoporosis other than vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency. A standardized list of blood and urine analyses and radiographs has been implemented for fragility fracture patients and selected other fracture patients who are undergoing investigation for osteoporosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Decision to take osteoporosis medication in patients who have had a fracture and are 'high' risk for future fracture: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' values and preferences are fundamental tenets of evidence-based practice, yet current osteoporosis (OP) clinical guidelines pay little attention to these issues in therapeutic decision making. This may be in part due to the fact that few studies have examined the factors that influence the initial decision to take OP medication. The purpose of our study was to examine patients' experiences with the decision to take OP medication after they sustained a fracture. METHODS: A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted with outpatients identified in a university teaching hospital fracture clinic OP program. Individuals aged 65+ who had sustained a fragility fracture within 5 years, were 'high risk' for future fracture, and were prescribed OP medication were eligible. Analysis of interview data was guided by Giorgi's methodology. RESULTS: 21 patients (6 males, 15 females) aged 65-88 years participated. All participants had low bone mass; 9 had OP. Fourteen patients were taking a bisphosphonate while 7 patients were taking no OP medications. For 12 participants, the decision to take OP medication occurred at the time of prescription and involved minimal contemplation (10/12 were on medication). These patients made their decision because they liked/trusted their health care provider. However, 4/10 participants in this group indicated their OP medication-taking status might change. For the remaining 9 patients, the decision was more difficult (4/9 were on medication). These patients were unconvinced by their health care provider, engaged in risk-benefit analyses using other information sources, and were concerned about side effects; 7/9 patients indicated that their OP medication-taking status might change at a later date. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of our older patients who had sustained a fracture found the decision to take OP medication a difficult one. In general, the decision was not considered permanent. Health care providers should be aware of their potential role in patients' decisions and monitor patients' decisions over time.

The BMD muddle: the disconnect between bone densitometry results and perception of bone health.

We conducted a phenomenological qualitative study to examine fracture patients' interpretations of their most recent bone densitometry results and perceptions of their current bone health. English-speaking outpatients who had sustained a fragility fracture in the previous 18-24 mo and reported having at least 1 previous bone mineral density (BMD) test were eligible. Data were collected through semistructured interviews in patients' homes. Patients were asked to describe their most recent BMD test results and perception of their bone health status based on these results. Eighteen patients (14 women and 4 men) aged 49-82 yr were recruited. BMD results showed bone density in patients to be normal (n=4), osteopenic (n=9), and osteoporotic (n=5). A correct diagnosis was recalled by 6 patients. Two common interpretations of BMD test results emerged: (1) no news was considered to be good news (n=9) and (2) evidence of compromised bone health was not considered to be serious or accurate (n=6). Medication adherence did not appear to be associated with perception of bone health or actual BMD results. Patients' perceptions of their current bone health did not correspond to the results of their most recent BMD test. Standardized bone densitometry reporting may improve patients' understanding of their bone health.

A postfracture initiative to improve osteoporosis management in a community hospital in ontario.

BACKGROUND: Screening programs to manage osteoporosis in fracture clinic environments have had varying success in terms of increasing rates of investigation and initiation of treatment for the disease. METHODS: We determined rates of postfracture investigation and care for osteoporosis in patients screened through a coordinator-based initiative in a community hospital fracture clinic. A coordinator screened outpatients, educated them about osteoporosis, advised them to see their family physician for assessment and/or treatment, and performed follow-up at six months. Men who were fifty years of age or older and women who were forty years of age or older and had a fragility fracture were eligible. RESULTS: Of 505 patients enrolled at baseline, 332 (66%) returned the follow-up questionnaire; 51% of those patients reported having had a bone mineral density test after screening and 26% had initiated first-line treatment (35% if the patients who had already initiated treatment at baseline were excluded) and an additional 23% were continuing treatment since baseline. After adjustment for demographic and baseline variables, patients who had initiated first-line treatment after screening were 4.15 times more likely to have had a bone mineral density test after screening than patients who had never initiated treatment and 11.67 times more likely to have had a bone mineral density test after screening than patients who had continued treatment since baseline. CONCLUSIONS: A coordinator-based osteoporosis screening program was associated with osteoporosis investigation and treatment. A postfracture bone mineral density test was highly associated with treatment initiation.

The osteoporosis needs of patients with wrist fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To provide information for practitioners regarding the osteoporosis (OP)-related needs of patients who present with low-trauma wrist fractures and are at high risk of subsequent hip fracture. DESIGN: Prospective protocol, retrospective analysis. SETTING: Large urban teaching hospital, regional trauma center. PATIENTS: All outpatients (women > or =40 years; men > or =50 years) who sustained fragility fractures of the wrist between December 1, 2002 and June 30, 2005. INTERVENTION: Patients were evaluated by a coordinator and recruited to an OP program for education, diagnosis, and treatment. Patient demographic data were collected. A baseline questionnaire included fracture and OP risk history, sociodemographics, Osteoporosis Health Beliefs Scale, and Osteoporosis Self-Efficacy Scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fracture history, OP risk factors, attitudes, and beliefs. RESULTS: Of 339 patients with wrist fractures, 286 had fragility fractures (mean age 64.8 years; 82% female) and met the age criteria. Seventeen percent of men and 36% of women with fragility wrist fractures had been previously diagnosed with OP or osteopenia; nearly all of them had been prescribed supplements, and two thirds had received aminobisphosphonate treatment for OP. Half of the patients had one or more risk factors for OP. Most patients were aware of OP, but few felt their fracture could result from OP. Bone densitometry completed on 55 patients in the first year indicated OP or osteopenia in 43 of 55 patients. Patients' health beliefs underestimated the seriousness of OP. Every patient with a fragility fracture of the wrist should understand that: (1) their fracture may be related to OP; (2) by having a fragility fracture, they are at higher risk for hip fracture; and (3) preventive treatment is effective and safe. Information should be partly gender specific. Patients who believe that weak bones didn't cause their fracture require additional attention to motivate them to undergo special treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention by the orthopaedic team to address potential underlying OP in patients with low-trauma wrist fractures should include directed patient education, testing, treatment with supplements and pharmacotherapy where indicated, and referral as needed.

A coordinator program in post-fracture osteoporosis management improves outcomes and saves costs.

BACKGROUND: The orthopaedic unit at a university teaching hospital hired an osteoporosis coordinator to identify patients with a fragility fracture and to coordinate their education, assessment, referral, and treatment of underlying osteoporosis. We report the results of an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the use of a coordinator (in comparison with the use of no coordinator) in avoiding future costs of subsequent hip fracture. METHODS: A one-year decision-analysis model was developed. The health outcome was subsequent hip fracture; only direct hospital costs were considered. With use of patient-level data from a previously described coordinator program and data from the literature, the expected annual incidence of subsequent hip fracture was calculated, on the basis of the type of index fracture (wrist, hip, humerus, other), attribution to osteoporosis, age, and gender. The rate of patient referral, the initiation of osteoporosis treatment, and adherence to therapy were modeled to modify the expected incidence of future hip fracture in the presence of a coordinator (with use of data from the program) and in the absence of a coordinator (with use of data from the literature). Sensitivity analysis modeling techniques were used to assess variable uncertainty and to evaluate coordinator cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Deterministic cost-effectiveness analysis showed that a tertiary care center that hired an osteoporosis coordinator who manages 500 patients with fragility fractures annually could reduce the number of subsequent hip fractures from thirty-four to thirty-one in the first year, with a net hospital cost savings of C$48,950 (Canadian dollars in year-2004 values), with use of conservative assumptions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 90% probability that hiring a coordinator costs less than C$25,000 per hip fracture avoided. Hiring a coordinator is a cost-saving measure even when the coordinator manages as few as 350 patients annually. Greater savings are anticipated after the first year and when additional costs such as rehabilitation and dependency costs are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Employment of an osteoporosis coordinator to manage outpatients and inpatients who have fragility fractures is predicted to reduce the incidence of future hip fractures and to save money (a dominant strategy). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a high probability of cost-effectiveness of this intervention from the hospital cost perspective.

Effective initiation of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment for patients with a fragility fracture in an orthopaedic environment.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures resulting from osteoporosis are common injuries. However, the identification and treatment of osteoporosis in these high-risk patients are widely reported to be inadequate. The goals of this study were to determine how many patients receiving inpatient or outpatient treatment for a fragility fracture could be identified and enrolled in a program for osteoporosis education, investigation, and treatment and receive appropriate osteoporosis care within the program. METHODS: An Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program was implemented to identify, educate, evaluate, refer, and treat patients considered to be at risk for osteoporosis because of a typical fragility fracture. System modifications included coordination among the orthopaedic unit, Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic, and nuclear medicine unit to provide a continuum of care for these patients. Barriers were addressed through ongoing education of physicians, staff, and patients to increase knowledge and awareness of osteoporosis. The percentages of patients previously diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, referred for investigation of osteoporosis, treated by the orthopaedic team, and receiving appropriate attention for osteoporosis were calculated. Risk factors for osteoporosis were also assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-nine patients with a fragility fracture (221 outpatients and 128 inpatients) who met the inclusion criteria and an additional eighty-one patients with a fracture (fifty-five outpatients and twenty-six inpatients) who did not meet the inclusion criteria but were suspected by their orthopaedic surgeons of having underlying osteoporosis were enrolled in the Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program. More than 96% (414) of these 430 patients received appropriate attention for osteoporosis. Approximately one-third (146) of the 430 patients had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis before the time of recruitment. Two hundred and twenty-two of the remaining patients were referred to the Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic or to their family physician for further investigation and treatment for osteoporosis. Treatment was initiated by the orthopaedic team for another twenty-three patients. Many patients had risk factors for osteoporosis in addition to the fragility fracture; these included a previous fracture (forty-nine of 187; 26%), a mother who had had a fragility fracture (forty-two of 188; 22%), or a history of smoking (105 of 188; 56%). CONCLUSIONS: In a coordinated post-fracture osteoporosis education and treatment program directed at patients with a fragility fracture and their caregivers, >95% of patients were appropriately diagnosed, treated, or referred for osteoporosis care. To accomplish this, a dedicated coordinator and the full cooperation of orthopaedic surgeons and residents, orthopaedic technologists, allied health-care professionals (nurses, physical and occupational therapists, and social workers), and administrative staff were required.