Fragility fracture identifies patients at imminent risk for subsequent fracture: real-world retrospective database study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The secondary fracture prevention gap in the osteoporosis field has been previously described as a 'crisis'. Closing this gap is increasingly important in the context of accumulating evidence showing that an incident fragility fracture is associated with an increased risk of subsequent fracture within 1-2 years, known as imminent fracture risk. The objective of this study was to use health services data to characterize the time between index fragility fractures occurring at different osteoporotic sites and subsequent fractures. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used de-identified health services data from the publicly funded healthcare system in Ontario, the largest province of Canada. Patients aged > 65 with an index fragility fracture occurring between 2011 and 2015 were identified from the ICES Data Repository using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. We examined median time to subsequent fragility fractures for osteoporotic fracture sites until the end of follow-up (2017). BMD assessment and use of osteoporosis therapies following index fracture were also characterized. RESULTS: Among 115,776 patients with an index fragility fracture, 17.8% incurred a second fragility fracture. Median time between index and second fracture occurring at any site was 555 days (interquartile range: 236-955). For each index fracture site examined, median time from index to second fracture was < 2 years. The proportion of patients with BMD assessment was 10.3% ≤1 year prior to and 16.4% ≤1 year post index fracture. The proportion of patients receiving osteoporosis therapy was 29.8% ≤1 year prior, 34.6% ≤1 year post, and 25.9% > 3 years post index fracture. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort of Canadian patients aged > 65 years who experienced a fragility fracture at any site are at imminent risk of experiencing subsequent fracture within the next 2 years and should be proactively assessed and treated.

Trends in major adverse cardiac events and healthcare utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada.

Background: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Canada. The COVID-19 pandemic altered the usual care of ambulatory and acute cardiac patients. This study aimed to describe ASCVD-related clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) patterns during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Alberta, Canada, relative to the three preceding years. Methods: A repeated cross-sectional study design was conducted over three-month periods using administrative health data between March 15, 2017, and March 14, 2021. ASCVD-related clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) endpoints. HCRU was assessed through general practitioner and other healthcare professional visits (including telehealth claims) for ASCVD events, emergency department visits, ASCVD diagnostic imaging tests, laboratory tests, and hospital length of stay. Results: Relative to the control year period (March to June 2019) ASCVD-related events (i.e., hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits and physician office visits) declined by 23% during the three-months COVID-19 period (March to June 2020). Acute declines were not sustained following June 2020. In contrast, in-patient mortality rates involving a primary MACE endpoint increased from March to June 2020 COVID-19 period. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding public health restrictions impacted ASCVD-related care. While many clinical outcomes returned to pre-pandemic levels at the end of the observation period, our results suggest that patients' HCRU declined, which could lead to further CV events and mortality. Understanding the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on ASCVD-related care may help improve healthcare resiliency.

Increasing Prevalence and Incidence of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Adult Patients in Ontario, Canada From 2002 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the second-leading cause of death in Canada. However, limited data are available on the prevalence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in Canada. The study objective was to describe the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD in adult patients in Ontario, Canada, and to evaluate temporal trends for subsequent ASCVD events among those with new-onset ASCVD. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study identified ASCVD incidence and prevalence data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences Data Repository for adults from Ontario. Overall prevalence was established for the period from 2002 to 2018. Incident cases from April 1, 2005 to March 2016 were then identified, and followed up to 2018. Primary outcomes were date and type of index event/procedure, patient characteristics/baseline demographics, and comorbidities. Secondary outcomes assessed were time from first to second ASCVD event, subsequent event(s) and/or mortality, and type of subsequent event(s) relative to the type of index/primary event. RESULTS: A total of 1,042,621 eligible prevalent ASCVD cases were identified; of these, 743,309 patients (69%) were newly diagnosed with incident ASCVD. The 10-year prevalence rates for all ASCVD subtypes increased over the study period. Overall event incidence rates per 1000 person-years were mostly stable or increased. Among incident cases, 50% experienced subsequent events over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study demonstrated increasing prevalence and high incidence of new ASCVD diagnoses in adults from Ontario, over the study period. These data, together with the substantial number of subsequent events in ASCVD patients, demonstrate significant clinical burden of this disease in Ontario.

CONTEXTE: Les maladies cardiovasculaires constituent la deuxième cause de décès au Canada. Toutefois, on dispose de peu de données sur la prévalence de la maladie cardiovasculaire athéroscléreuse (MCVAS) au Canada. L'étude avait pour objectifs de décrire l'incidence et la prévalence de la MCVAS chez les patients adultes en Ontario (Canada) et d'évaluer les tendances temporelles des manifestations subséquentes de MCVAS chez les personnes ayant une MCVAS d'apparition récente. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Cette étude observationnelle rétrospective a permis de colliger les données sur l'incidence et la prévalence de la MCVAS chez les adultes ontariens consignées dans le référentiel de l'Institut des sciences cliniques évaluatives. La prévalence globale a été établie pour la période allant de 2002 à 2018. Les cas incidents survenus du 1er avril 2005 à mars 2016 ont ensuite été recensés et suivis jusqu'en 2018. Les paramètres d'évaluation principaux étaient : date et nature de la manifestation index et de l'intervention; caractéristiques des patients et données démographiques initiales; comorbidités. Les éléments suivants constituaient les paramètres d'évaluation secon-daires : temps écoulé entre la première et la deuxième manifestation de MCVAS, la ou les manifestations subséquentes et/ou le décès; nature de la ou des manifestations subséquentes par rapport à celle de la manifestation index ou primaire. RÉSULTATS: En tout, 1 042 621 cas de MCVAS prévalents admissibles ont été dénombrés; parmi ceux-ci, il y avait 743 309 (69 %) cas incidents de MCVAS nouvellement diagnostiqués. Les taux de prévalence à 10 ans de tous les sous-types de MCVAS ont augmenté au cours de la période étudiée. Les taux globaux d'incidence des manifestations par 1000 années-personnes étaient généralement stables ou accrus. Cinquante pour cent des cas incidents ont été associés à des manifestations subséquentes au cours de la période étudiée. CONCLUSIONS: Cette étude observationnelle a démontré une prévalence croissante et une incidence élevée de nouveaux diagnostics de MCVAS chez les adultes en Ontario au cours de la période étudiée. Les données à cet égard, ainsi que le grand nombre de manifestations subséquentes de la maladie, démontrent que la MCVAS constitue un fardeau clinique considérable en Ontario.

A retrospective observational study of osteoporosis management after a fragility fracture in primary care.

In many countries, osteoporosis is predominantly managed by primary care physicians; however, management after a fragility fracture has not been widely investigated. We describe osteoporosis care gaps in a real-world patient cohort. Our findings help inform initiatives to identify and overcome obstacles to effective management of patients after fragility fracture. PURPOSE: A fragility fracture is a major risk factor for subsequent fracture in adults aged ≥ 50 years. This retrospective observational study aimed to characterize post-fracture management in Canadian primary care. METHODS: A total of 778 patients with an index fragility fracture (low-trauma, excluding small bones) occurring between 2014 and 2016 were identified from medical records at 76 primary care centers in Canada, with follow-up until January 2018. RESULTS: Of 778 patients (80.5% female, median age [IQR] 73 [64-80]), 215 were on osteoporosis treatment and 269 had osteoporosis diagnosis recorded prior to their index fracture. The median follow-up was 363 (IQR 91-808) days. Of patients not on osteoporosis treatment at their index fracture, 60.2% (n = 339/563) remained untreated after their index fracture and 62.2% (n = 23/37) continued untreated after their subsequent fracture. After their index fracture, fracture risk assessment (FRAX or CAROC) was not performed in 83.2% (n = 647/778) of patients, and 59.9% (n = 466/778) of patients did not receive bone mineral density testing. Of patients without osteoporosis diagnosis recorded prior to their index date, 61.3% (n = 300/489) remained undiagnosed after their index fracture. At least one subsequent fracture occurred in 11.5% (n = 86/778) of patients. CONCLUSION: In the primary care setting, fragility fracture infrequently resulted in osteoporosis treatment or fracture risk assessment, even after multiple fragility fractures. These results suggest a fragility fracture is not recognized as a major risk factor for subsequent fracture and its occurrence does not prompt primary care physicians to intervene. These data urge initiatives to identify and overcome obstacles to primary care physicians' effective management of patients after fragility fractures.