Three-year follow-up of a novel orthopedic ward fracture liaison services (OWFLS) model.

OBJECTIVE: We established an orthopedic ward fracture liaison services (OWFLS) model and evaluated its role in improving detection rates of bone metabolic markers, treatment rates, and long-term treatability. METHODS: This observational retrospective cohort study included 120 patients aged >50 years hospitalized for primary osteoporotic fracture from January 2018 to January 2019 (group A: not included in OWFLS). Group B (included in OWFLS) comprised 120 patients from February 2019 to February 2020. We compared rates of bone metabolic index testing, treatment, and adherence; symptomatic improvement; and recurrent fracture between groups. RESULTS: Rates of bone metabolism index testing (50% vs. 0%) and medication use (94.2% vs. 64.2%) were significantly higher after OWFLS implementation. There was no significant difference in adherence rates at 3 months between groups (97.3% vs. 93.5%). Adherence rates at 1 and 3 years were better in group B than A (73.5% vs. 51.9%; 57.5% vs. 26%, respectively). Recurrence of bone pain at 1 and 3 years was significantly lower in group B than A (20.4% vs. 46.8%; 45.1% vs. 76.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: OWFLS improved the detection rate of bone metabolism indicators, treatment rate, and patient adherence and reduced recurrence of bone pain. OWFLS may be suitable for settings lacking human resources.

Osteoporotic quality of life, self-efficacy, and fracture protection behaviors in postmenopausal women.

It is important for postmenopausal women to acquire bone health protective behaviors to protect them from fractures. For this reason, it is necessary to evaluate bone health during menopause and to inform women. PURPOSE: This study was conducted to examine osteoporotic fracture protection behaviors, quality of life, and self-efficacy in postmenopausal women. METHODS: In the study, the data were evaluated with the socio-demographic data form, Osteoporotic Fracture Protection Scale, Osteoporosis Self-Efficacy-Efficacy Scale, European Osteoporosis Foundation Quality of Life Questionnaire-41, which includes introductory information on socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: It was determined that the postmenopausal women included in our study were between the ages of 45-92; more than half of them had chronic diseases; their average BMI was 29; and their DEXA score was - 3.00 ± 0.41. Among the people included in our study, those with a history of fractures had lower self-efficacy scores. It was determined that the fracture prevention scale scores of the participants were above the average, and the average of the osteoporosis-related quality of life score was high. In addition, it was determined that there was a strong positive correlation between self-efficacy and fracture prevention scale. CONCLUSION: It is important to determine behaviors to prevent osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women, to raise the necessary awareness and to inform patients about the precautions to be taken. It is thought that it will increase patients' quality of life by increasing their disease-related self-efficacy. Therefore, there is a need for research on providing education to op patients and examining the results.

Survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association.

A survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association conducted in 2022 found considerable variation in care across the region. A Call to Action is proposed to improve acute care, rehabilitation and secondary fracture prevention across Asia Pacific. PURPOSE: Fragility fractures impose a substantial burden on older people and their families, healthcare systems and national economies. The current incidence of hip and other fragility fractures across the Asia Pacific region is enormous and set to escalate rapidly in the coming decades. This publication describes findings of a survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association (APOA) conducted in 2022. METHODS: The survey was developed as a collaboration between the Asia Pacific Osteoporosis and Fragility Fracture Society and the Asia Pacific Fragility Fracture Alliance, and included questions relating to aspects of care upon presentation, during surgery and mobilisation, secondary fracture prevention, and access to specific services. RESULTS: In total, 521 APOA members completed the survey and marked variation in delivery of care was evident. Notable findings included: Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated that analgesia was routinely initiated in transit (by paramedics) or within 30 minutes of arrival in the Emergency Department. One-quarter of respondents stated that more than 80% of their patients underwent surgery within 48 hours of admission. One-third of respondents considered non-hip, non-vertebral fractures to merit assessment of future fracture risk. One-third of respondents reported the presence of an Orthogeriatric Service in their hospital, and less than a quarter reported the presence of a Fracture Liaison Service. CONCLUSION: A Call to Action for all National Orthopaedic Associations affiliated with APOA is proposed to improve the care of fragility fracture patients across the region.

Osteoporotic fracture risk in women with breast cancer treated with aromatase inhibitors: a health insurance claims database study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for estrogen receptor-dependent breast cancer may expose patients to an increased osteoporosis risk. This study was performed to estimate fracture risk in women with breast cancer to whom AIs were prescribed in Japan. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Women with breast cancer prescribed AIs over a 12-month period were identified and matched to women not prescribed AIs using a propensity score. Fracture rates were estimated by a cumulative incidence function and compared using a cause-specific Cox hazard model. The proportion of women undergoing bone density tests was retrieved. RESULTS: For all fractures sites combined, cumulative fracture incidence at 10 years was 0.19 [95%CI: 0.16-0.22] in women prescribed AIs and 0.18 [95%CI: 0.15-0.21] without AIs. AI prescription was not associated with any changes in risk (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.08 [95%CI: 0.99-1.17] p = 0.08). Women prescribed AI more frequently underwent bone density testing (31.9% [95% CI: 31.2%; 32.6%] versus 2.2% [95% CI: 2.0%; 2.4%]). CONCLUSIONS: The anticipated association between AI exposure and osteoporotic fracture risk in Japanese women with breast cancer was not seen clearly.

Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.

Background: Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives: 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods: The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates. Results: Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting. Conclusions: Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs. Future work: Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting. Limitations: Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bisphosphonates are drug treatments commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is the most used and is taken by mouth, weekly at a specific time of the week, which can be challenging. Less than one in four people continue this treatment beyond 2 years. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which vary in frequency and how they are administered. The most acceptable and best value-for-money regimen is unclear. Our aim was to determine how effective alternative bisphosphonates are compared to alendronate at preventing fractures and whether reduction in fracture risk was achieved at a reasonable financial cost, but acceptable to patients. The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: a review of the published evidence on patients' and doctors' views, experiences and preferences regarding different bisphosphonate treatment regimens, followed by interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Stage 1B: an update of an existing study on how effective bisphosphonates are in preventing fragility fractures caused by osteoporosis and whether they are good value for money. Stage 2: identification of questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonate treatments. Taking bisphosphonate medication often involves quite a lot of effort by patients, particularly when taking alendronate tablets. A yearly infusion of zoledronate treatment was more acceptable, easier to engage with and the most effective treatment compared to alendronate. However, the cost of administering zoledronate in hospital made alendronate better value for money. Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk of fracture, but 'continuing with treatment', particularly alendronate tablets, remains a challenge. A yearly infusion of zoledronate offers an acceptable and effective treatment, but further research is needed to support patients and healthcare professionals in making decisions about the various treatments, benefits and cost savings of administering zoledronate outside of hospital and in the community.

Use of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in clinical practice and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool future directions.

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool is a free, online fracture risk calculator which can be used to predict 10-year fracture risk for women and men over age 50 years. It incorporates seven clinical risk factors and bone density to give a 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture. This dynamic tool can be used with patients at the bedside to help guide treatment decisions. There are some limitations to Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, with the most central limitation being the fact that inputs are binary. Much research has been done to try to refine Fracture Risk Assessment Tool to allow for more accurate risk prediction, and this article describes the data for adjusting Fracture Risk Assessment Tool depending on the clinical scenario such as the dose of glucocorticoid use, presence of diabetes and others. Recently, the new FRAXplus tool has been developed to address many of these concerns and will likely replace the old Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in the future. At the current time, it is available in beta form.

Methods for Refining the FRAX® Tool in Patients with Low Bone Density to Help Improve the Accuracy of Osteoporotic Fracture Risk PredictionMany patients who have low bone density develop fragility fractures, even those whose bone density is not yet within the osteoporosis range. Thus, in patients with low bone density, the health care team should estimate the risk of fracture to decide which patients should take medications to prevent fractures. Factors such as age, body mass index, steroid use, family history and other clinical factors can influence the fracture risk, in addition to bone density. There is an online calculator called the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) which allows patients and doctors to integrate these risk factors with bone density in order to estimate the 10 year risk of osteoporotic fractures. FRAX® asks a series of yes/no questions about the patient's risks for fracture, and also takes into account the patient's country of residence, age, gender, race and bone density at the femur neck. However, there are some important limitations of this calculator. For example, we think that steroid medications increase the risk of fractures, and the higher the dose, the higher the risk of fractures. However, FRAX® only allows a "yes" or "no" input to the steroid use question. This paper aims to descibe methods for refining the FRAX® calculation to make the fracture risk prediction more accurate. For example, it describes a mathematical adjustment to FRAX® to account for the dose of steroids used. It also reviews methods for FRAX® adjustment for diabetes type 1 and 2, and severity of rheumatoid arthritis, among other considerations. Importantly, there is a new FRAX® tool that is currently in beta testing which will also further refine the accuracy of fracture risk prediction.

Challenges of fracture risk assessment in Asian and Black women.

OBJECTIVES: Bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk calculators (eg, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX]) guide primary prevention care in postmenopausal women. BMD scores use non-Hispanic White (NHW) reference data for T-score classification, whereas FRAX incorporates BMD, clinical risk factors, and population differences when calculating risk. This study compares findings among Asian, Black, and NHW women who underwent osteoporosis screening in a US health care system. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Asian, Black, and NHW women aged 65 to 75 years who underwent BMD testing (with no recent fracture, osteoporosis therapy, metastatic cancer, multiple myeloma, metabolic bone disorders, or kidney replacement therapy) were compared across the following measures: femoral neck BMD (FN-BMD) T-score (normal ≥ -1, osteoporosis ≤ -2.5), high FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk (FRAX-Hip ≥ 3%), FRAX risk factors, and diabetes status. RESULTS: Among 3640 Asian women, 23.8% had osteoporosis and 8.7% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (34.5% among those with osteoporosis). Among 11,711 NHW women, 12.3% had osteoporosis and 17.2% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (84.8% among those with osteoporosis). Among 1711 Black women, 68.1% had normal FN-BMD, 4.1% had BMD-defined osteoporosis, and 1.8% had FRAX-Hip scores of at least 3% (32.4% among those with osteoporosis). Fracture risk factors differed by group. Diabetes was 2-fold more prevalent in Black and Asian (35% and 36%, respectively) vs NHW (16%) women. CONCLUSIONS: A large subset of Asian women have discordant BMD and FRAX scores, presenting challenges in osteoporosis management. Furthermore, FN-BMD and especially FRAX scores identified few Black women at high fracture risk warranting treatment. Studies should examine whether fracture risk assessment can be optimized in understudied racial minority populations, particularly when findings are discordant.

[Prescription of osteoporosis drugs and secondary fracture prevention still at low levels and with large regional variation]. / Låg förskrivning av läkemedel för osteoporos inom Sverige.

In Sweden, secondary prevention of fragility fractures through osteoporosis medication is directed by national guidelines. According to these, postmenopausal women and men who have suffered a fragility fracture should be assessed and pharmaceutical treatment of osteoporosis should always be considered. For the most serious fractures (hip and vertebral fractures), treatment can be initiated immediately. Despite this, previous studies have shown that the level of pharmaceutical treatment is low. In Sweden, osteoporosis drugs are predominantly administered by prescription, but about one-third of drugs are nowadays administered on-site in the health care system, which is not recorded in national registers. We have estimated the total amount of osteoporosis drugs through aggregated sales statistics. Our results show that medical treatment with osteoporosis drugs is still at low levels, covering approximately 5 percent of the population aged 70 or older, with clear differences between regions.

[Augmentation techniques for the treatment of osteoporosis-associated fractures of the extremities]. / Augmentationstechniken zur Versorgung osteoporoseassoziierter Frakturen der Extremitäten.

The current demographic development is leading to an increasing number of cases of osteoporosis-related fractures. Affected individuals are typically part of a vulnerable, predominantly geriatric patient group with limited physical resources. Additionally, the pathophysiological characteristics of osteoporotic bones with reduced bone quality and quantity, pose a significant challenge to the osteosynthesis techniques used. Achieving rapid postoperative mobilization and stable weight-bearing osteosynthesis to prevent postoperative medical complications are the main goals of the surgical management. In recent years augmentation techniques have gained in importance in the treatment of osteoporosis-related fractures by significantly enhancing the stability of osteosyntheses and reducing mechanical complication rates. The main options available are polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) augmentation and various bioresorbable bone substitute materials with different properties. Implant augmentations can be applied at various locations in the extremity bones and standardized procedures are now available, such as for the proximal humerus and femur. When used correctly, low complication rates and promising clinical outcomes are observed. This article aims to provide an overview of available techniques and applications based on the current literature. Guidelines and substantial scientific evidence are still limited.

Expanding access to fracture liaison services in Australia for people with minimal trauma fractures: a system dynamics modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To project how many minimal trauma fractures could be averted in Australia by expanding the number and changing the operational characteristics of fracture liaison services (FLS). STUDY DESIGN: System dynamics modelling. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: People aged 50 years or more who present to hospitals with minimal trauma fractures, Australia, 2020-31. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of all minimal trauma fractures and of hip fractures averted by increasing the FLS number (from 29 to 58 or 100), patient screening rate (from 30% to 60%), and capacity for accepting new patients (from 40 to 80 per service per month), and reducing the proportion of eligible patients who do not attend FLS (from 30% to 15%); cost per fracture averted. RESULTS: Our model projected a total of 2 441 320 minimal trauma fractures (258 680 hip fractures; 2 182 640 non-hip fractures) in people aged 50 years or older during 2020-31, including 1 211 646 second or later fractures. Increasing the FLS number to 100 averted a projected 5405 fractures (0.22%; $39 510 per fracture averted); doubling FLS capacity averted a projected 3674 fractures (0.15%; $35 835 per fracture averted). Our model projected that neither doubling the screening rate nor reducing by half the proportion of eligible patients who did not attend FLS alone would reduce the number of fractures. Increasing the FLS number to 100, the screening rate to 60%, and capacity to 80 new patients per service per month would together avert a projected 13 672 fractures (0.56%) at a cost of $42 828 per fracture averted. CONCLUSION: Our modelling indicates that increasing the number of hospital-based FLS and changing key operational characteristics would achieve only moderate reductions in the number of minimal trauma fractures among people aged 50 years or more, and the cost would be relatively high. Alternatives to specialist-led, hospital-based FLS should be explored.

The combined use of anti-peptic agents is associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture: a nationwide case-control study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Long-term use of acid suppressants such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine 2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) has been associated with the risk of osteoporotic fracture. Acid suppressants and muco-protective agents (MPAs) are often used together as anti-ulcer agents. We evaluated the association between the risk of osteoporotic fracture and the combined use of these anti-peptic agents. METHODS: A population-based case-control study was conducted by analyzing the Korean National Health Insurance Data from 2014 to 2020. Patients who had been prescribed anti-peptic agents, such as PPI, H2RA, or MPA, were included. Considering the incidence of osteoporotic fractures, the case group (n = 14,704) and control group (n = 58,816) were classified by 1:4 matching based on age and sex. RESULTS: The use of all types of anti-peptic agents was associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures (PPI: hazard osteoratio [HR], 1.31; H2RA: HR, 1.44; and MPA: HR, 1.33; all p < 0.001). Compared to PPI alone, the combined use of "PPI and H2RA" (HR, 1.58; p = 0.010) as well as "PPI, H2RA, and MPA" (HR, 1.71; p = 0.001) was associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. However, compared with PPI alone, "MPA and PPI or H2RA" was not associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. CONCLUSION: This study found that the combined use of "PPI and H2RA" was associated with a higher risk of osteoporotic fractures. In cases where deemed necessary, the physicians may initially consider prescribing the combination use of MPA.

Factores predictivos del riesgo de fractura de cadera osteoporótica en octogenarios / Predictive factors of osteoporotic hip fracture in octogenarians

Objetivo Este estudio tiene como objetivo identificar los factores de riesgo asociados con las fracturas de cadera osteoporóticas en octogenarios y busca perfeccionar las estrategias de prevención primaria para estas fracturas. Material y métodos Realizamos un estudio de casos y controles en el que participaron personas de 79 años o más con fracturas de cadera, comparándolas con controles de la misma edad y sexo sin antecedentes de fracturas de cadera. Se recogieron factores epidemiológicos, clínicos, antropométricos y analíticos. Se evaluó la presencia de osteoporosis mediante densitometría ósea. Definimos la sarcopenia según los criterios del Grupo de Trabajo Europeo sobre Sarcopenia en Personas Mayores (EWGSOP2). Resultados Se analizaron 95 pacientes por grupo, con una edad media de 82 años, de los cuales 74% eran mujeres. El análisis multivariado incluyó factores estadísticamente significativos encontrados en el análisis univariado (p<0,05). Estos factores incluyeron el índice de Barthel, la evaluación nutricional mediante la herramienta CONUT, el ácido fólico, la deficiencia de vitamina D, la presencia de fracturas previas, la pérdida de agudeza visual, la circunferencia bicipital, la sarcopenia y la osteoporosis (densitometría en el cuello del fémur). El estado nutricional (OR: 0,08 [0,01-0,61]), los niveles de ácido fólico (OR 0,32 [0,1-1]) y la pérdida de agudeza visual (OR 33,16 [2,91-377,87]) fueron los factores de riesgo independientes asociados con fractura de cadera. Conclusiones La evaluación del estado nutricional en pacientes de edad avanzada, junto con una evaluación geriátrica integral, representan herramientas fácilmente reproducibles y rentables. Estas herramientas pueden ayudar eficazmente a identificar a las personas con riesgo de sufrir fracturas de cadera, contribuyendo así a medidas preventivas más específicas y eficientes. (AU)

Objective This study aims to identify the risk factors associated with osteoporotic hip fractures in octogenarians and seeks to refine primary prevention strategies for these fractures. Material and methods We conducted a case–control study involving individuals aged 79 years and older with hip fractures, comparing them to age- and sex-matched controls without a history of hip fractures. We collected epidemiological, clinical, anthropometric, and analytical factors. We evaluated the presence of osteoporosis using bone densitometry. We defined sarcopenia according the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People criteria (EWGSOP2). Results Ninety-five patients per group were analyzed, with a mean age of 82 years, of which 74% were women. The multivariate analysis included statistically significant factors found in the univariate analysis (P<.05). These factors included the Barthel Index, nutritional assessment using the CONUT tool, folic acid, vitamin D deficiency, presence of previous fractures, loss of visual acuity, bicipital circumference, sarcopenia, and osteoporosis (densitometry in the neck of the femur). The nutritional state (OR: 0.08 [0.01–0.61]), the folic acid levels (OR 0.32 [0.1–1]), and a loss of visual acuity (OR 33.16 [2.91–377.87]) were the independent risk factors associated with hip fracture. Conclusions The assessment of nutritional status in elderly patients, coupled with a comprehensive geriatric assessment, represents easily reproducible and cost-effective tools. These tools can effectively aid in identifying individuals at risk of hip fractures, thereby contributing to more targeted and efficient preventive measures. (AU)

Factores predictivos del riesgo de fractura de cadera osteoporótica en octogenarios / Predictive factors of osteoporotic hip fracture in octogenarians

Objetivo Este estudio tiene como objetivo identificar los factores de riesgo asociados con las fracturas de cadera osteoporóticas en octogenarios y busca perfeccionar las estrategias de prevención primaria para estas fracturas. Material y métodos Realizamos un estudio de casos y controles en el que participaron personas de 79 años o más con fracturas de cadera, comparándolas con controles de la misma edad y sexo sin antecedentes de fracturas de cadera. Se recogieron factores epidemiológicos, clínicos, antropométricos y analíticos. Se evaluó la presencia de osteoporosis mediante densitometría ósea. Definimos la sarcopenia según los criterios del Grupo de Trabajo Europeo sobre Sarcopenia en Personas Mayores (EWGSOP2). Resultados Se analizaron 95 pacientes por grupo, con una edad media de 82 años, de los cuales 74% eran mujeres. El análisis multivariado incluyó factores estadísticamente significativos encontrados en el análisis univariado (p<0,05). Estos factores incluyeron el índice de Barthel, la evaluación nutricional mediante la herramienta CONUT, el ácido fólico, la deficiencia de vitamina D, la presencia de fracturas previas, la pérdida de agudeza visual, la circunferencia bicipital, la sarcopenia y la osteoporosis (densitometría en el cuello del fémur). El estado nutricional (OR: 0,08 [0,01-0,61]), los niveles de ácido fólico (OR 0,32 [0,1-1]) y la pérdida de agudeza visual (OR 33,16 [2,91-377,87]) fueron los factores de riesgo independientes asociados con fractura de cadera. Conclusiones La evaluación del estado nutricional en pacientes de edad avanzada, junto con una evaluación geriátrica integral, representan herramientas fácilmente reproducibles y rentables. Estas herramientas pueden ayudar eficazmente a identificar a las personas con riesgo de sufrir fracturas de cadera, contribuyendo así a medidas preventivas más específicas y eficientes. (AU)

Objective This study aims to identify the risk factors associated with osteoporotic hip fractures in octogenarians and seeks to refine primary prevention strategies for these fractures. Material and methods We conducted a case–control study involving individuals aged 79 years and older with hip fractures, comparing them to age- and sex-matched controls without a history of hip fractures. We collected epidemiological, clinical, anthropometric, and analytical factors. We evaluated the presence of osteoporosis using bone densitometry. We defined sarcopenia according the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People criteria (EWGSOP2). Results Ninety-five patients per group were analyzed, with a mean age of 82 years, of which 74% were women. The multivariate analysis included statistically significant factors found in the univariate analysis (P<.05). These factors included the Barthel Index, nutritional assessment using the CONUT tool, folic acid, vitamin D deficiency, presence of previous fractures, loss of visual acuity, bicipital circumference, sarcopenia, and osteoporosis (densitometry in the neck of the femur). The nutritional state (OR: 0.08 [0.01–0.61]), the folic acid levels (OR 0.32 [0.1–1]), and a loss of visual acuity (OR 33.16 [2.91–377.87]) were the independent risk factors associated with hip fracture. Conclusions The assessment of nutritional status in elderly patients, coupled with a comprehensive geriatric assessment, represents easily reproducible and cost-effective tools. These tools can effectively aid in identifying individuals at risk of hip fractures, thereby contributing to more targeted and efficient preventive measures. (AU)

Improving patients' experiences of diagnosis and treatment of vertebral fracture: co-production of knowledge sharing resources.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis involves changes to bones that makes them prone to fracture. The most common osteoporotic fracture is vertebral, in which one or more spinal vertebrae collapse. People with vertebral fracture are at high risk of further fractures, however around two-thirds remain undiagnosed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends bone protection therapies to reduce this risk. This study aimed to co-produce a range of knowledge sharing resources, for healthcare professionals in primary care and patients, to improve access to timely diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This study comprised three stages: 1. In-depth interviews with primary care healthcare professionals (n = 21) and patients with vertebral fractures (n = 24) to identify barriers and facilitators to diagnosis and treatment. 2. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to diagnosis were presented to three stakeholder groups (n = 18), who suggested ways of identifying, diagnosing and treating vertebral fractures. Fourteen recommendations were identified using the nominal group technique. 3. Two workshops were held with stakeholders to co-produce and refine the prototype knowledge sharing resources (n = 12). RESULTS: Stage 1: Factors included lack of patient information about symptoms and risk factors, prioritisation of other conditions and use of self-management. Healthcare professionals felt vertebral fractures were harder to identify in lower risk groups and mistook them for other conditions. Difficulties in communication between primary and secondary care meant that patients were not always informed of their diagnosis, or did not start treatment promptly. Stage 2: 14 recommendations to improve management of vertebral fractures were identified, including for primary care healthcare professionals (n = 9) and patients (n = 5). Stage 3: The need for allied health professionals in primary care to be informed about vertebral fractures was highlighted, along with ensuring that resources appealed to under-represented groups. Prototype resources were developed. Changes included help-seeking guidance and clear explanations of medical language. CONCLUSIONS: The study used robust qualitative methods to co-produce knowledge sharing resources to improve diagnosis. A co-production approach enabled a focus on areas stakeholders thought to be beneficial to timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Dissemination of these resources to a range of stakeholders provides potential for substantial reach and spread.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) with vitamin D composite agent can prevent fracture better than SERMs treatment: based on the National Health Claims Database 2017-2019.

With the analysis of nationwide health claim data, treatment with the composite agent of SERMs and vitamin D reduces the risk of osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture better compared to SERMs treatment in women with osteoporosis aged ≥ 50 years. PURPOSE: This study compared the potential of the composite agent of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and vitamin D (SERM + VitD) with that of SERMs-only for fracture prevention and mortality reduction in women aged ≥ 50 years. METHODS: The incidence of osteoporotic fracture (fractures of the vertebrae, hip, wrist, or humerus) and all-cause death after treatment with SERM + VitD and SERMs were characterized using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database 2017-2019. The participants were divided into two groups (SERM + VitD vs SERMs). After exclusion and propensity score matching, 2,885 patients from each group were included in the analysis. Fracture incidence was compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to compare the risks of fracture occurrence and mortality between the groups. RESULTS: The incidence rate (138.6/10,000 vs. 192.4/10,000 person-years), and risk of osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.97; p = 0.024) were lower in the SERM + VitD group than in the SERMs group. Analysis for specific fractures showed a lower hazard of hip fracture in the SERM + VitD group (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71; p = 0.009). No difference was observed between the groups regarding mortality. CONCLUSION: The risk of osteoporotic fractures, especially hip fractures, was lower in the SERM + VitD group than in the SERMs group. Therefore, the composite agent of SERMs and vitamin D can be considered as a viable option for postmenopausal women with a relatively low fracture risk.

Comparison of radiological and functional outcomes of conservative treatment with teriparatide and denosumab in thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral fracture.

Teriparatide and denosumab, anti-osteoporosis medications with different mechanisms, have been widely used in the patients with osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) considered as advanced osteoporosis. Teriparatide has been shown to enhance bone formation and fracture healing in OVF, but there are still no sufficient evidences discussing about the role of denosumab in newly developed OVF. In this study, we found the similar radiological deformation and functional outcomes of conservative treatment with teriparatide and denosumab in thoracolumbar (TL) OVF, and teriparatide showed a more frequent incidence of fracture union with paravertebral bone bridge formation compared to denosumab. INTRODUCTION: Teriparatide and denosumab have been widely used to treat advanced osteoporosis and prevent subsequent fractures in patients with OVCF. Unlike teriparatide, which is considered to be effective in fracture healing, there is still no clear role and evidence for the effect of denosumab in acute OVCF. This study compared the radiological and functional outcomes of conservative treatment with teriparatide and denosumab in TL-OVF. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 78 women with mean age of 74.69 ± 7.66 (60-92) years diagnosed as a TL-OVF with no neurological deficits. All patients were treated conservatively with teriparatide (34 of group T, once-daily 20 µg) or denosumab (44 of group D, once-6 months 60 mg) for 6 months. We evaluated the radiological deformation (kyphotic angle, segmental vertebral kyphotic angle, and compression ratio) and the incidence of fracture union with paravertebral bone bridge formation (FUPB) and functional outcomes using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 0, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: In the radiological deformation and functional outcomes, there were no significant differences at 0, 3, and 6 months between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the incidence of FUPB at 6 months was higher in group T (20/34, 58.8%) compared to group D (11/44, 25.0%) (P = 0.004), and teriparatide was the most statistically significant factor for achieving FUPB (OR 4.486, P = 0.012) in multivariable logistic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Teriparatide and denosumab, despite of their different pharmacological mechanisms, showed similar radiological deformation and functional outcomes in the conservative treatment of TL-OVF. However, teriparatide showed a significantly higher incidence of fracture union with paravertebral bone bridge formation.

Establishing consensus recommendations for long-term osteoporosis care for patients who have attended an Australian fracture liaison service: a Delphi study.

Coordinating healthcare activities between fracture liaison services (FLS) and primary care is challenging. Using a Delphi technique, we developed 34 consensus statements to support improved care coordination across this healthcare transition. PURPOSE: Evidence supporting an optimal coordination strategy between fracture liaison services (FLS) and primary care is lacking. This study aimed to develop consensus statements to support consistency and benchmarking of clinical practice to improve coordination of care for patients transitioning from FLS to primary care following an osteoporotic fracture. METHODS: A Delphi technique was used to develop consensus among a panel of experts, including FLS clinicians (medical and non-medical), general practitioners (GPs), and consumers. RESULTS: Results of a preparatory questionnaire (n = 33) informed the development of 34 statements for review by expert panellists over two Delphi rounds (n = 25 and n = 19, respectively). The majority of participants were from New South Wales (82%), employed as FLS clinicians (78.8%) and working in metropolitan centres (60.6%). Consensus was achieved for 24/34 statements in round one and 8/10 statements in round two. All statements concerning patient education, communication, and the GP-patient relationship achieved consensus. Expert opinions diverged in some areas of clinician roles and responsibilities and long-term monitoring and management recommendations. CONCLUSION: We found clear consensus among experts in many key areas of FLS integration with primary care. While experts agreed that primary care is the most appropriate setting for long-term osteoporosis care, overall confidence in primary care systems to achieve this was low. The role of (and responsibility for) adherence monitoring in a resource-limited setting remains to be defined.

The impact of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors on bone fracture risk: a nationwide nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in elderly patients with hypertension and at risk of fractures has been in the limelight because of accumulating evidence that localized RAS activation in bone tissue leads to osteoclastic bone resorption, resulting in osteoporosis. This study set out to investigate the association between RASi use and fracture incidence in a large cohort. METHODS: We employed a nested case-control design to investigate the association between RASi use and newly developed fractures. A case was defined as a patient newly diagnosed with a fracture between January 2004 and December 2015. We selected 1,049 cases and controls using 1:1 propensity score matching. Conditional logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate the association between RASi exposure and fracture incidence. RESULTS: Overall, RASi usage was significantly associated with lower odds for fracture incidence (ever-users vs never-users: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91). We found that ARB-only users experienced fewer fractures than RASi-never users (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86), whereas ACEi-only users or ARB/ACEi-ever users did not. In subgroup analysis, RASi-ever users without cerebrovascular disease, those with a BMI exceeding 23, and statin exposure had significantly lower ORs. CONCLUSIONS: The present study established a significant association between RASi use and reduced fracture incidence, thus highlighting the potential clinical utility of RASi use as a preventive strategy in elderly patients at risk for osteoporotic fractures.