Fracture incidence and characterization in patients on osteoporosis treatment: the ICARO study. Improvement in the Undertreatment of Osteoporosis Following Hip Fracture Randomized controlled trial of a primary care–based screening program to identify older women with prevalent osteoporotic vertebral fractures: Cohort for skeletal health in Bristol and Avon (COSHIBA) Interventions to improve osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture. A prospective, randomized trial. A randomized study of two different information-based interventions on the management of osteoporosis in minimal and moderate trauma fractures A multimodal intervention to improve fragility fracture management in patients presenting to emergency departments. Low acceptance of treatment in the elderly for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fracture in the acute rehabilitation setting Osteoporosis prevalence and levels of treatment in primary care: the Australian BoneCare Study. Initiation of osteoporosis assessment in the fracture clinic results in improved osteoporosis management: a randomised controlled trial Nurse case-manager vs multifaceted intervention to improve quality of osteoporosis care after wrist fracture: randomized controlled pilot study Prevalence of osteoporosis and fractures among women prescribed osteoporosis medication in five European countries: the POSSIBLE EU® study Osteoporosis action: design of the healthy bones project trial. Pharmacologic Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians Community-based randomised controlled trial evaluating falls and osteoporosis risk management strategies UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis A Controlled Trial To Increase Detection and Treatment of Osteoporosis in Older Patients with a Wrist Fracture Osteoporosis improvement: a large-scale randomized controlled trial of patient and primary care physician education.
UNLABELLED None of the available osteoporosis therapies have been shown to completely abolish the risk of fractures . In clinical practice , the outcome may be even poorer . In 880 patients prescribed with antiresorptives ( alendronate , risedronate , and raloxifene ) for > 1 year , a  fragility fracture  was recorded in 8.9%/year of them . This incidence is considerably higher than that observed in r and omized clinical trials , and it was significantly related to poor compliance and lack of supplementation with calcium and vitamin D. INTRODUCTION Osteoporotic fracture is one of the most important public health concerns among the elderly . Currently available therapies have been shown to significantly decrease the risk of fracture , although none of them completely abolishes this risk . In clinical practice , poor treatment response may also result from a number of other factors . MATERIAL S AND METHODS The Incidence and ChAracterization of inadequate clinical Responders in Osteoporosis ( ICARO ) is a multicenter , observational study carried out in Italy . It aim ed to analyze , in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis , the risk factors for an " inadequate clinical response " to drug therapy , defined as the occurrence of new vertebral or nonvertebral fragility fractures in patients prescribed , for at least 1 year , alendronate , risedronate , or raloxifene , with a compliance > 50 % . RESULTS In 880 patients treated with antiresorptive agents  for a median of 2.0 years ( 95 % CI : 1.0 - 4.5 ) years , the " inadequate clinical responder ( ICR ) " subjects over the observation period were 220 ( 25 % ) , with an annual incidence of 8.9 % . ICRs , compared with " adequate clinical responders ( ACRs ) , " had more pretreatment fractures and were treated longer ( 2.8 versus 1.8 years ; p < 0.001 ) . After multiple adjustment for these confounding factors , significant determinants of inadequate clinical response were a poorer treatment compliance and a less frequent co-administration of calcium and vitamin D supplements . CONCLUSIONS The incidence of fractures during treatment with antiresorptive agents in a clinical setting is considerably higher than that observed in r and omized clinical trials . Inadequate compliance to treatment and lack of supplementation of calcium and vitamin D are major determinants of this poor response Background : Osteoporosis is a common disease characterized by decreased bone mass and increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women and the elderly . Hip fractures are among the most common consequences of osteoporosis and unfortunately usually occur late in the course of the disease . When a patient is admitted to the hospital with a fragility hip fracture , a unique opportunity for diagnosis and treatment presents itself . Fortunately , several medications have proven to be effective in lowering the risk of future fractures . The purpose s of the present study were to test the hypothesis that most fragility hip fractures go untreated and to determine whether educational efforts to raise physician awareness have led to an improvement in osteoporosis treatment rates . Methods : A retrospective cohort study was performed with use of the patient data bases at two university medical centers and one university-affiliated community hospital . The charts of 300 r and omly selected patients were sorted with use of ICD-9 ( International Classification of Diseases , Ninth Revision ) codes for femoral neck fractures . There were 100 patients from each center , with twenty-five patients from each year between 1997 and 2000 . The admitting diagnosis , mechanism of injury , admission medications , procedures performed during hospitalization , and discharge medications were then extracted and analyzed . During this period , the National Osteoporosis Foundation established guiding principles for the treatment of fragility fractures . Results : Of the seventy-five patients from all centers for each year from 1997 to 2000 , 11 % , 13 % , 24 % , and 29 % , respectively , were discharged with a prescription for some medication targeting osteopenia , either supplemental calcium or an antiosteoporotic medication ( estrogen , calcitonin , a bisphosphonate , or raloxifene ) . A trended chi-square analysis of this increase revealed a p value of < 0.001 , indicating that this improvement in treatment was unlikely due to chance alone . Fifty-eight ( 19.3 % ) of the 300 patients in the study received a prescription at the time of discharge . However , forty of these patients ( 13.3 % of the overall group ) received calcium  and only eighteen ( 6.0 % of the overall group ) received a medication to actively prevent bone resorption and treat osteoporosis . In addition , no patient underwent a bone density scan while in the hospital . Conclusions : Elderly patients and postmenopausal women who are admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with a low-energy femoral neck fracture have been undertreated for osteoporosis . However , over the four years of the present study , there was a significant increase in the rate of treatment . It is hoped that treatment rates will continue to increase in the future with continued educational efforts Approximately 12 % of postmenopausal women have osteoporotic vertebral fractures ( VFs ) ; these are associated with excess morbidity and mortality and a high risk of future osteoporotic fractures . Despite this , less than one-third come to clinical attention , partly due to lack of clear clinical triggers for referral for spinal radiographs . The aim of this study was to investigate whether a novel primary care – based screening tool could be used to identify postmenopausal women with osteoporotic VFs and increase appropriate management of osteoporosis . A r and omized controlled trial was undertaken in 15 general practice s within the Bristol area of the UK . A total of 3200 women aged 65 to 80 years were enrolled , with no exclusion criteria . A simple screening tool was carried out by a nurse in primary care to identify women at high risk of osteoporotic VFs . All identified high-risk women were offered a diagnostic thoracolumbar radiograph . Radiographs were reported using st and ard National Health Service ( NHS ) reporting , with results sent back to each participant 's general practitioner ( GP ) . Participants in the control arm did not receive the screening tool or radiographs . The main outcome measure was self-reported prescription of medication for osteoporosis at 6 months with a r and om 5 % sub sample verified against electronic GP records . Secondary outcome was self-reported incidence of new fractures . Results showed that allocation to screening increased prescription of osteoporosis medications by 124 % ( odds ratio [ OR ] for prescription 2.24 at 6 months ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 1.16 to 4.33 ) . Allocation to screening also reduced fracture incidence at 12-month follow-up ( OR for new fracture 0.60 ; 95 % CI , 0.35–1.03 ; p = 0.063 ) , although this did not reach statistical significance . This study supports the use of a simple screening tool administered in primary care to increase appropriate prescription of medications for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in the UK . © 2012 American Society for Bone and Mineral BACKGROUND Treatment of osteoporosis following a hip fracture has been notoriously poor . Many efforts have been made to improve treatment rates . The purpose of this study was to determine whether a perioperative inpatient intervention program , involving patient education and providing a list of questions for the primary care physician , increased the percentage of patients in whom osteoporosis was addressed following a hip fracture . METHODS A prospect i ve , r and omized trial involving eighty patients who had been admitted to an academic medical center with a low-energy hip fracture was conducted . During their hospitalization , the study group patients were engaged in a fifteen-minute discussion regarding the association between osteoporosis and hip fractures , the efficacy of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans in the diagnosis of osteoporosis and of bisphosphonates in its treatment , and the importance of medical follow-up for osteoporosis management . These patients were also provided with five questions regarding osteoporosis treatment to be given to their primary medical physician , and they were reminded about the questions during a follow-up telephone call six weeks later . The patients in the control group received a brochure describing methods for preventing falls . Both groups were contacted by telephone at six months after discharge to determine whether osteoporosis had been addressed . Positive indicators of intervention included assessment of bone mineral density with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and initiation of antiresorptive therapy .  RESULTS The average age in each group was eighty-two years , and 78 % of the patients were female . Four patients in each group did not survive through the six-month follow-up period and were excluded from the trial . Fifteen ( 42 % ) of the thirty-six patients who had been r and omized to the study group , compared with only seven ( 19 % ) of the thirty-six patients in the control group , had their osteoporosis addressed by their primary physician . This difference between the groups was significant ( p = 0.036 ) . CONCLUSIONS Patients who were provided with information and questions for their primary care physician about osteoporosis were more likely to receive appropriate therapeutic intervention than were patients who had not received the information and questions . Orthopaedic surgeons have a unique opportunity to improve the rate of osteoporosis treatment in the perioperative period following a hip fracture by educating patients and directing them toward channels for long-term osteoporosis management Introduction Despite the high risk for subsequent fracture following an initial osteoporotic fracture , the majority of subjects with minimal trauma fractures receive no treatment for osteoporosis . The primary aim of this investigation was to determine whether an information-based intervention could change post-fracture management of osteoporosis . A secondary aim was to define participant- and doctor-related barriers to osteoporosis management . Methods Consecutive fracture patients ( n=254 ) from the outpatient fracture clinic at St Vincent ’s Hospital , Sydney were interviewed over a 15-month period ( February 2002–July 2003 ) . Fracture risk factors , prior investigation and treatment for osteoporosis were collected at baseline . Participants were initially contacted after 3 months to ascertain follow-up management . All those not investigated or treated by their primary care physician were then r and omized to either a personalized letter or the same letter plus an offer of a free bone mineral density ( BMD ) test . Participants were contacted after 9 months to record further investigations or treatment for osteoporosis . Results Less than 20 % of the participants had a primary care physician follow-up 3 months after the fracture , leaving 159 who were r and omized to a personalized letter ( n=79 ) and a personalized letter plus the offer of a free BMD test ( n=80 ) . There was a significant increase in the number of people investigated for osteoporosis in the group receiving the letter plus BMD offer [ 38 % ( letter + BMD ) vs. 7 % ( letter only ) ; p=0.001 ) . A high proportion of those tested had low BMD ( 49 % osteopenia and 17 % osteoporosis ) . However , the rates of treatment in both groups were very low ( 6 % ) . Furthermore , even among the few individuals ( 23 % ) who contacted their primary care physician , only 25 % were recommended treatment . The belief that the fracture was osteoporotic was an independent predictor of having a BMD test , a primary care physician follow-up and treatment . Other independent predictors were age over 50 years for a primary care physician follow-up , female sex for having a BMD test and having had a BMD test for treatment . Conclusion This study demonstrates that an information-based intervention led to a modest increase in the proportion of people investigated for osteoporosis ; however . there was no significant effect on treatment rates . The offer of a free BMD assessment was associated with a significantly higher rate of investigation than a personalized letter alone ( odds ratio : 8.5 ; 95 % confidence interval : 3.1–24.5 ) , but this investigation did not affect treatment rate . The low uptake of either a BMD or a visit to a primary care physician together with low rates of treatment recommendation even among people who contacted their primary care physician reflects significant participant and doctor-related barriers to osteoporosis management OBJECTIVE To implement and evaluate a multimodal intervention to improve osteoporosis treatment in patients with a fragility fracture . DESIGN , SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Strategies to improve the management of patients discharged from an emergency department after presentation with fragility fracture were implemented prospect ively in a large tertiary public hospital . Patients were surveyed by post to assess their awareness of osteoporosis and of the need for treatment . General practitioners and hospital clinicians completed an online question naire about their attitudes to osteoporosis and its management . A simplified consensus guideline was developed for local use . Our study was conducted between 1 October 2007 and 31 October 2008 . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Rates of referral of patients for osteoporosis review ; rates of investigation and treatment . RESULTS Although most GPs ( 259/306 [ 85 % ] ) accepted that it was their responsibility to assess and treat their patients and inform them of their osteoporosis risk , only 35/87 patients ( 40 % ) indicated awareness of their risk . After implementation of our project , the rate of bone mineral densitometry investigations improved from 6/200 ( 3 % ) to 39/87 ( 45 % ) ( P < 0.05 ) . The number of patients receiving calcium and vitamin D supplementation  increased from 24/200 ( 12 % ) ( for both supplements ) to 29/87 ( 33 % ) and 32/87 ( 37 % ) , respectively ( P < 0.05 ) . Initiation of specific treatments increased from 12/200 ( 6 % ) to 26/87 ( 30 % ) ( P < 0.05 ) . Referral of eligible patients to the Fragile Bone Clinic for osteoporosis review improved from 20/500 ( 4 % ) to 51/194 ( 26 % ) . After being contacted by a fracture liaison nurse , 84 % of these patients presented for osteoporosis review in the clinic . CONCLUSIONS A major key to improving osteoporosis management is to actively identify all patients at risk and proactively engage and encourage them to seek assessment and management . A multimodal strategy involving a dedicated fracture liaison nurse may offer the greatest potential for improving education and patient follow-up and treatment Background and aims : Given the high risk of subsequent fracture among elderly persons with fracture , it is important to initiate secondary treatment for osteoporosis . Acute rehabilitation centers may offer a unique opportunity to introduce treatment . Therefore , we evaluated willingness-to-participate and compliance with evidence -based interventions for the secondary prevention of  osteoporotic fracture in a non-r and omized study conducted in the acute rehabilitation setting . We also described differences in baseline characteristics between study participants and non- participants . Methods : All consecutive , community-dwelling admissions to an acute rehabilitation unit ( Boston , MA ) with the diagnosis of fracture were screened for enrollment . Eligible subjects were offered a free , 6-month supply of alendronate/cholecalciferol ( 70 mg/2800 IU weekly ) , calcium and vitamin D supplements , and fall prevention strategies . Six-month compliance ( ≥75 % consumption of medication or supplement ) with the interventions was determined at a home visit . Results : Among 62 eligible subjects , 25 agreed to participate . Non- participants were older than participants ( 86 vs 80 yrs , p<0.01 ) . There was no significant difference between other characteristics of participants and non- participants including sex , weight , type of fracture , cognitive status , and functional status . The most common reason for non-participation was reluctance to take another medication . Among participants , only 52 % were compliant with alendronate and 58 % were compliant with calcium and vitamin D supplementation at 6 months . Conclusions : Willingness-to-participate and compliance with secondary prevention strategies for osteoporosis was low in the acute rehabilitation setting , even when medications were provided free of cost . Educating individuals with fracture and their families on the consequences and treatment of osteoporosis may help to decrease the risk of sustaining a second fracture by accepting secondary preventive measures UNLABELLED The level of recognition and treatment of osteoporosis is not well characterized in primary care . In data from a large sample of postmenopausal women attending 927 primary care physicians , 29 % of women reported one or more fractures after menopause . The great majority ( 72 % ) were not on any osteoporosis-specific therapy . INTRODUCTION Osteoporosis is often first recognized at the time of a low-trauma fracture . However , by this stage , the risk of subsequent fractures has already risen substantially . Moreover , in many countries , only a small proportion of women , who have already sustained fractures , receive a treatment shown to reduce this increased risk of further fractures . MATERIAL S AND METHODS This project was initiated to examine the prevalence of osteoporotic fractures , risk factors for osteoporosis , and use of antifracture therapy among postmenopausal Australian women . More than 88,000 women from 927 primary care physicians returned over 69,358 surveys . Of these , 57,088 reported the presence of a postmenopausal fracture or risk factors . RESULTS Among these r and omly selected postmenopausal women , 29 % reported having had one or more low-trauma fractures after menopause ( 44 % substantiated in current records ) . One-third of these women reported multiple fractures . The prevalence of all types of fractures , except rib and ankle , increased with age and low body weight . Those who reported fractures were also more likely to report early menopause , corticosteroid use , and a family history of osteoporosis . Moreover , those with vertebral fractures were more likely to record height loss , kyphosis , and back pain . Physical inactivity , low calcium intake , and smoking had no consistent relationship with any fracture outcome . Of the women who reported a fracture after menopause , only 28 % were on any specific therapy for osteoporosis , and 7 % were on calcium alone . Of those who had been told they had osteoporosis by a doctor , 40 % were receiving specific osteoporosis therapy . CONCLUSIONS In this large study of postmenopausal Australian women attending primary care physicians , 29 % reported at least one low-trauma fracture after menopause . Less than one-third of these women were on specific treatment for osteoporosis , and only 40 % were ever told they had osteoporosis . Therefore , osteoporotic fractures are common in postmenopausal Australian women , and few , despite their substantially increased risk of further fractures , are on any specific anti-osteoporotic therapy . These data support the need for more effective education for the community and medical practitioners of the clinical significance of osteoporotic fractures and alternatives for treatment Summary Osteoporosis management post fragility fracture has traditionally been deficient with up to 60–90 % of patients remaining untreated for osteoporosis in some studies . Efforts have been made to address this deficiency with some successes reported . Introduction The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of two different models of screening for osteoporosis in a community fracture clinic setting . Methods A prospect i ve r and omised clinical trial was conducted to assess the  DXA scan and treatment rates in patients with fragility fractures when assessment for osteoporosis had been initiated in the fracture clinic  compared with the “ usual care ” of assessment initiation by the participant ’s general practitioner . Results Sixty-six patients were enrolled in the study . Thirty-three patients each were in the control and intervention groups . The assessment rate ( DXA scan rate ) was significantly better in the intervention group where participants were referred for assessment from fracture clinic compared to the control group where participants were referred for assessment by their general practitioner ( 68 vs 36 % , respectively ; p < 0.05 ) . For patients who were assessed for osteoporosis , treatment rates were similar in both the control and intervention groups ( 100 vs 88 % , p > 0.05 ) . Conclusion This study demonstrates that screening for osteoporosis initiated in fracture clinic results in improved osteoporosis management compared to screening initiated in primary care . Orthopaedic surgeons and other specialists need to be more active in managing osteoporosis in patients who present with fragility fractures and should at the very least initiate assessment in the fracture clinic setting Summary Few out patients with fractures are treated for osteoporosis in the years following fracture . In a r and omized pilot study , we found a nurse case-manager could double rates of osteoporosis testing and treatment compared with a proven efficacious quality improvement strategy directed at patients and physicians ( 57 % vs 28 % rates of appropriate care ) . Introduction Few patients with fractures are treated for osteoporosis . An intervention directed at wrist fracture patients ( education ) and physicians ( guidelines , reminders ) tripled osteoporosis treatment rates compared to controls ( 22 % vs 7 % within 6 months of fracture ) . More effective strategies are needed . Methods We undertook a pilot study that compared a nurse case-manager to the multifaceted intervention using a r and omized trial design . The case-manager counseled patients , arranged bone mineral density ( BMD ) tests , and prescribed treatments . We included controls from our first trial who remained untreated for osteoporosis 1-year post-fracture . Primary outcome was  bisphosphonate treatment and secondary outcomes were BMD testing , appropriate care ( BMD test-treatment if bone mass low ) , and costs . Results Forty six patients untreated 1-year after wrist fracture were r and omized to case-manager ( n = 21 ) or multifaceted intervention ( n = 25 ) . Median age was 60 years and 68 % were female . Six months post-r and omization , 9 ( 43 % ) case-managed patients were treated with bisphosphonates  compared with 3 ( 12 % ) multifaceted intervention patients ( relative risk [ RR ] 3.6 , 95 % confidence intervals [ CI ] 1.1–11.5 , p = 0.019 ) . Case-managed patients were more likely than multifaceted intervention patients to undergo BMD tests ( 81 % vs 52 % , RR 1.6 , 95%CI 1.1–2.4 , p = 0.042 ) and receive appropriate care ( 57 % vs 28 % , RR 2.0 , 95%CI 1.0–4.2 , p = 0.048 ) . Case-management cost was $ 44 ( CDN ) per patient vs $ 12 for the multifaceted intervention . Conclusions A nurse case-manager substantially increased rates of appropriate testing and treatment for osteoporosis in patients at high-risk of future fracture when compared with a multifaceted quality improvement intervention aim ed at patients and physicians . Even with case-management , nearly half of patients did not receive appropriate care . Trial Registry clinical trials.gov identifier : Summary European observational 1-year study assessed osteoporosis and fracture patterns in 3,402 postmenopausal women prescribed osteoporosis medication .  Almost 40 % of patients had a previous fracture , while 25 % had neither fracture nor dual energy X-ray absorptiometry ( DXA ) diagnosis and were prescribed medication , probably due to other risk factors . Introduction This analysis assessed osteoporosis and fracture prevalence in postmenopausal women prescribed osteoporosis treatment in the Prospect i ve Observational Study Investigating Bone Loss Experience in Europe(POSSIBLE EU ® ) . Methods Women in this observational , multicenter 1-year study were categorized by fracture history and location at baseline . Baseline characteristics were analyzed according to no DXA and DXA diagnosis ( osteoporosis or osteopenia ) . Fractures occurring during the 1-year follow-up period were recorded . Results Of the 3,402 women enrolled , 39 % had a previous fracture , of whom 30 % had ≥2 fractures . One thous and seven hundred and eighty-four ( 52 % ) patients had a DXA diagnosis ( osteoporosis 68 % , osteopenia 31 % , and unknown 1 % ) . Among the osteoporosis patients , 37 % had a previous fracture ( hip 2.9 % , vertebral 8.8 % , and non-hip , non-vertebral 25 % ) and 35 % had fractures associated with major trauma . Of the 3,402 women , 1,476 ( 43 % ) had no DXA diagnosis ; of these , 57 % had no fracture ( 25 % of all women ) . Risk factors varied across patients with and without DXA diagnosis . During the 1-year follow-up period , the fracture incidence in patients with or without a previous fracture at baseline was 4.7 % and 1.6 % , respectively . Conclusion Almost 40 % of patients prescribed osteoporosis medication had a previous fracture , highlighting a population with advanced disease . In contrast , 25 % of patients had neither a previous fracture nor DXA diagnosis and were prescribed treatment , probably due to other risk factors . There is a need for continued improvement of disease management in European women Although osteoporosis is common in older adults , it is often under-diagnosed and under-treated . We developed community-based patient- and physician-directed interventions for fracture prevention and compared them in a 2 x 2 factorial r and omized controlled trial . The study population included older adults who were enrolled in a state-run pharmacy benefits program ( The Pharmaceutical Assistance Contract for the Elderly in Pennsylvania ) for Medicare beneficiaries . We r and omly assigned 826 primary care physicians and their 31,715 patients to one of four trial arms -- no patient and no physician intervention , patient but no physician intervention , physician but no patient intervention , both patient and physician interventions . The patient intervention consisted of targeted communication about fall and fracture prevention and osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment . It was delivered through several mailings . The physician intervention entailed one-on-one academic detailing encounters covering the same topics . The composite primary endpoint consisted of use of osteoporosis medication or a bone mineral density test . Other endpoints included patient 's knowledge and attitudes towards fractures and osteoporosis , use of lower extremity strengthening to prevent falls , and the occurrence of fractures . All outcomes will be analyzed using r and om effects models accounting for clustering of subjects within physicians ' practice The National Institutes of Health 's consensus conference ( 1 ) defined osteoporosis as a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk for fracture . Bone strength reflects the integration of two main features : bone density and bone quality .Bone quality refers to architecture , turnover , damage accumulation ( e.g. , microfractures ) , and mineralization . Although osteoporosis can affect any bone , the hip , spine , and wrist are most likely to be affected . Osteoporosis affects an estimated 44 million Americans or 55 % of people 50 years of age or older . Another 34 million Americans are estimated to have low bone mass , meaning that they are at an increased risk for osteoporosis . Osteoporosis can be diagnosed by the occurrence of fragility fracture . In patients without fragility fracture , osteoporosis is often diagnosed by low bone density .  Dual x-ray absorptiometry ( DXA ) is the current gold st and ard test for diagnosing osteoporosis in people without an osteoporotic fracture .  Dual x-ray absorptiometry results are scored as st and ard deviations ( SDs ) from a young healthy norm ( usually female ) and reported as T-scores . For example , a T-score of 2 indicates a bone mineral density that is 2 SDs below the comparative norm . The international reference st and ard for the description of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and in men age 50 years or older is a femoral neck bone mineral density of 2.5 SD or more below the young female adult mean ( 2 ) . Low bone density , as measured by DXA , is an imperfect predictor of fracture risk , identifying fewer than half the people who go on to have an osteoporotic fracture . Screening guidelines for women are well established ( 3 ) , and the American College of Physicians ( ACP ) recently published guidelines on screening for men ( 4 ) . This guideline presents the available evidence on various pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis . Medications used to treat osteoporosis may affect different parts of the skeletal system differently , and efficacy for vertebral fractures does not necessarily imply efficacy for nonvertebral fractures . The target audience for this guideline is all clinicians and the target patient population is all adult men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis . These recommendations are based on the systematic evidence review by MacLean and colleagues ( 5 ) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored Southern California Evidence -Based Practice Center evidence report ( 6 ) . The drugs currently approved for prevention of osteoporosis include alendronate , ib and ronate , risedronate , zoledronic acid , estrogen , and raloxifene . The drugs currently approved for treatment of osteoporosis include alendronate , ib and ronate , risedronate , calcitonin , teriparatide , zoledronic acid ( in postmenopausal women ) , and raloxifene . Testosterone , pamidronate , and etidronate are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment or prevention of osteoporosis . Methods The literature search done by MacLean and colleagues for the systematic review ( 5 ) included studies from MEDLINE ( 1966 to December 2006 ) , the ACP Journal Club data base , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( no date limits ) , the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s ( no date limits ) , Web sites of the United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence ( no date limits ) , and the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Program ( January 1998 to December 2006 ) . The review ers limited their search to English- language publications and human studies . They derived evidence for comparative benefits of various treatments exclusively from r and omized , controlled trials , whereas they included evidence from other types of studies for short- and long-term harms . Two physicians independently abstract ed data about study population s , interventions , follow-up , and outcome ascertainment by using a structured form . For each group within a r and omized trial , a statistician extracted the sample size and number of persons reporting fractures . Two review ers , under the supervision of the statistician , independently abstract ed information about adverse events . The statistician or the principal investigator resolved disagreements . This guideline is based on an evaluation of 76 r and omized , controlled trials , 4 of which were identified in the up date d search , and 24 meta-analyses that were included in the efficacy analyses . The analyses of adverse events included 491 articles , representing 417 r and omized trials , 25 other controlled clinical trials , 11 open-label trials , 31 large observational studies , and 9 case reports of osteonecrosis among bisphosphonate users . MacLean and colleagues ' background article ( 5 ) includes details about the methods used for the systematic evidence review . The ACP rates the evidence and recommendations by using the Grading of Recommendations , Assessment , Development , and Evaluation ( GRADE ) system with minor modifications ( Table 1 ) . In addition , the evidence review ers used predefined criteria to assess the quality of systematic review s and r and omized trials , based on internal and external validity assessment s detailed in the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses ( QUOROM ) statement ( 7 ) . Table 1 . The American College of Physicians ' Guideline Grading System The objective of this guideline is to synthesize the evidence for the following questions : What are the comparative benefits in fracture reduction among and also within the following treatments for low bone density :  bisphosphonates , specifically alendronate , risedronate , etidronate , ib and ronate , pamidronate , and zoledronic acid ; calcitonin ; estrogen for women ; teriparatide ; selective estrogen receptor modulators ( SERMs ) , specifically raloxifene and tamoxifen ; testosterone for men ; vitamins and minerals , specifically vitamin D and calcium ; and the combination of calcium plus vitamin D ? How does fracture reduction result ing from treatments vary among individuals with different risks for fracture as determined by bone mineral density ( borderline , low , or severe ) , previous fractures ( prevention vs. treatment ) , age , sex , glucocorticoid use , and other factors ( such as community-dwelling vs. institutionalized or vitamin Ddeficient vs. not ) ? What are the short- and long-term harms ( adverse effects ) of these therapies , and do these vary by specific sub population s ? Comparative Benefits of Drugs versus Placebo in Fracture Reduction Evidence from 24 meta-analyses ( 830 ) and 35 additional r and omized trials published after the meta-analyses ( 3165 ) described the effect of 9 of the 14 agents ( alendronate , etidronate , risedronate , calcitonin , estrogen , teriparatide , raloxifene , calcium , and vitamin D ) on fracture incidence . For 4 agents ( ib and ronate , pamidronate , zoledronic acid , and tamoxifen ) , the review ers found no meta-analyses and instead gathered the evidence from 14 r and omized trials ( 6679 ) . No studies were found that reported fracture rates for testosterone . Three r and omized trials ( 35 , 80 , 81 ) and 1 meta- analysis ( 82 ) evaluated the combination of calcium plus vitamin D  on fractures .  Bisphosphonates Good- quality evidence showed that alendronate , etidronate , ib and ronate , and risedronate prevent vertebral fractures . In addition , evidence from good- quality studies demonstrated that both alendronate and risedronate prevent nonvertebral and hip fractures . Two large r and omized trials showed that zoledronic acid prevents vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in high-risk population s and reduces the risk for hip fracture ( 67 , 74 ) . Ib and ronate has not been shown to reduce nonvertebral fractures ( 68 ) . Of the 6 fairly small trials that looked at vertebral fractures , 1 demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in fractures with pamidronate relative to placebo ( 0.14 [ 95 % CI , 0.03 to 0.72 ] ) ( 73 ) . However , after these data were pooled , the pooled risk estimate for fractures for pamidronate relative to placebo was not significant ( 0.52 [ CI , 0.21 to 1.24 ] ) ( 6 ) . Calcitonin Fair- quality evidence shows that calcitonin reduces vertebral fractures ( 83 , 84 ) . Good- quality evidence indicates that calcitonin does not reduce nonvertebral fractures ( 13 , 16 ) . Estrogen Good- quality evidence shows that estrogen reduces the incidence of vertebral ( 29 , 85 ) , nonvertebral ( 86 ) , and hip fractures ( 85 ) . Teriparatide Good- quality evidence shows that teriparatide prevents vertebral fractures . The evidence related to teriparatide preventing nonvertebral fractures is mixed ; 1 large r and omized trial showed a reduction in nonvertebral fractures ( 34 ) but 2 small trials did not ( 87 , 88 ) . SERMs Good- quality evidence shows that raloxifene prevents vertebral fractures , but that tamoxifen has no effect on vertebral fractures ( 8991 ) . In addition , both raloxifene and tamoxifen had no effect on hip fractures ( 91 ) . Tamoxifen is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment or prevention of osteoporosis . Testosterone No studies reported fracture rates for testosterone . Calcium and Vitamin D In the studies evaluated by MacLean and colleagues ( 5 ) , the evidence for the effect of calcium alone on reduction of fractures is complex . Most studies of pharmacologic agents for osteoporosis include calcium and vitamin D as part of the treatment regimen . Evidence from 1 meta- analysis ( 27 ) and several r and omized trials ( 35 , 48 , 51 , 92 ) showed no significant difference between calcium and placebo in preventing vertebral , nonvertebral , and hip fractures in postmenopausal women . However , nonadherence to therapy may influence this result , and 1 trial with a prespecified analysis of adherent patients found a reduction in fracture risk ( 48 ) . A recent meta- analysis ( 82 ) concluded that the relative risk ( RR ) for fracture with calcium alone was 0.90 ( CI , 0.80 to 1.00 ) , but it did not include a modestly large trial with negative results ( 35 ) . MacLean and colleagues ( 5 ) Background Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant public health concern . Interventions that increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis , as well as prevention of fractures and falls , are substantially underutilized . This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic r and omised trial of a multifaceted community-based care program aim ed at optimizing the evidence -based management of falls and fractures in patients at risk . Design 6-month r and omised controlled study . Methods This population -based study was completed in the Algoma District of Ontario , Canada a geographically vast area with Sault Ste Marie ( population 78 000 ) as its main city . Eligible patients were allocated to an immediate intervention protocol ( IP ) group , or a delayed intervention protocol ( DP ) group  . The DP group received usual care for 6 months and then was crossed over to receive the interventions . Components of the intervention were directed at the physicians and their patients and included patient-specific recommendations for osteoporosis therapy as outlined by the clinical practice guidelines developed by Osteoporosis Canada , and falls risk assessment and treatment . Two primary outcomes were measured including implementation of appropriate osteoporosis and falls risk management . Secondary outcomes included quality of life and the number of falls , fractures , and hospital admissions over a twelve-month period . The patient is the unit of allocation and analysis . Analyses will be performed on an intention to treat basis . Discussion This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic r and omised trial of a multi-faceted , community-based intervention to optimize the implementation of evidence based management for patients at risk for falls and osteoporosis . Trial Registration This trial has been registered with clinical trials.gov ( ID : NCT00465387 Introduction In 2008 , the UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group ( NOGG ) produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis , with an up date in 2013 . This paper presents a major up date of the guideline , the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women and men age 50 years or over . Methods Where available , systematic review s , meta-analyses and r and omised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base . Conclusions and recommendations were systematic ally grade d according to the strength of the available evidence . Results Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis , fracture-risk assessment , lifestyle measures and pharmacological interventions , duration and monitoring of bisphosphonate therapy , glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis , osteoporosis in men , postfracture care and intervention thresholds . Conclusion The guideline , which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence ( NICE ) , provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals who are involved in its management Context Many patients who sustain fragility fractures do not receive subsequent testing and treatment for osteoporosis . Contribution This study shows that faxed reminders to physicians , treatment guidelines endorsed by opinion leaders , and patient education about osteoporosis can increase the testing and therapy for osteoporosis among patients who present to an emergency department with wrist fracture . Caution s This study did not r and omly assign persons to the intervention group and did not examine improvements in bone density or repeated fractures . The Editors Osteoporosis , a chronic and progressive condition that leads to decreased bone mass and skeletal fragility , may result in fractures , disability , pain , deformity , and even death ( 1 - 3 ) . The condition is common , affecting an estimated 1.4 million Canadians and 10 million Americans ( 1 , 2 ) . These figures represent 25 % of women and 12 % of men older than 50 years of age ( 1 , 2 ) . In the United States , the annual cost of treating osteoporosis and its sequelae has been estimated at $ 13.8 billion ( 2 ) , compared with $ 7.5 billion for congestive heart failure and $ 6.2 billion for asthma ( 3 ) . Without better preventive strategies , the rate of osteoporotic fractures is expected to double over the next 15 years ( 4 ) . Several experts ( 5 ) and guidelines ( 1 , 2 ) suggest a preventive strategy of identifying people with typical osteoporosis-related fractures ( for example , fractures of the hip , spine , or wrist [ often called fragility fractures ] ) and targeting them for treatment . They recommend this strategy because this population is at the greatest risk for subsequent fracture and may derive the greatest absolute benefit from treatment . Numerous safe and effective treatments can reduce the risk for recurrent fracture by 40 % to 60 % ( 1 - 3 , 6 ) . In addition , with the use of bisphosphonates and raloxifene , all subgroups of examined patients may obtain beneficial effects ( 3 , 7 - 9 ) within a year ( 7 , 8) . People 50 years of age and older with a fracture of the wrist may be particularly well suited to a strategy of case finding and secondary prevention . Fractures of the wrist are the most common symptomatic fracture related to osteoporosis ( 3 ) , and 70 % to 80 % of persons with wrist fractures have low bone mass ( 10 , 11 ) . Observational studies suggest that a wrist fracture is a sentinel event in the natural history of osteoporosis because this type of fracture forecasts an increased risk for fractures of the hip and spine over the next 10 to 20 years ( 12 - 14 ) . Best practice ( clinical practice consistent with current evidence and expert consensus ) would be to identify people 50 years of age or older with a fragility fracture of the wrist , to measure their bone mineral density , and to treat those with low bone mass or osteoporosis ( 1 , 2 , 5 ) . However , the gap between best practice and everyday clinical practice is wide . Over the past 5 to 10 years , studies from the United States ( 3 , 15 , 16 ) , Canada ( 17 , 18 ) , and elsewhere ( 5 , 19 ) report that rates of testing for and treating osteoporosis a year or longer after a fracture of the wrist are less than 10 % to 20 % . This is an important failure in the process of knowledge translation and indicates that benefits within our reach are not being achieved . We design ed a pragmatic , multifaceted osteoporosis intervention strategy directed at people 50 years of age or older with a fracture of the wrist and at their primary care physicians . The intervention consisted of physician reminders , treatment guidelines endorsed by local opinion leaders , and patient education . Our primary objective was to examine whether this intervention improved the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in this high-risk population . Secondary objectives included examining the effect of this intervention on patients ' knowledge , satisfaction , and quality of life . Methods Setting and Participants Capital Health ( Edmonton , Alberta ) is one of the largest integrated health service delivery organizations in Canada ( 20 ) . It provides comprehensive health services for about 1 million people and has an annual budget of almost $ 2 billion ( Canadian ) ( 20 ) . Primary care is delivered by approximately 900 fee-for-service physicians . We enrolled participants from the 2 largest emergency departments in the region : the University of Alberta Hospital ( a university-based teaching hospital ) and the Royal Alex and ra Hospital ( a university-affiliated community teaching hospital ) . These emergency departments provide most of the fracture care and emergency orthopedic services to the region . Consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with a wrist fracture were potentially eligible . Inclusion criteria were as follows : age 50 years or older ; any simple , closed fracture of the distal forearm ; and discharge home . We excluded patients who were already taking prescription treatments for osteoporosis . Because we did not ask patients whether they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis until study closeout , a patient with a history of osteoporosis who was not being treated with prescription medication was potentially eligible for inclusion . We also excluded patients who were unable to provide consent , were unwilling to participate , were admitted to the hospital , resided in a long-term care facility , resided outside the Capital Health region , or could not read and converse in English . Study Design and Patient Enrollment We conducted a prospect i ve controlled trial with blinded ascertainment of outcomes . To allocate patients to the intervention or usual care control groups , we adapted and modified an onoff 1-site study design for 2 sites ( 21 ) . For 1 month at a time , in sequential order , the intervention was on at 1 emergency department while it was off at the other . At the end of each month , research nurses alternated intervention status from on to off or vice versa . Patients with wrist fractures were treated , as appropriate , by emergency department physicians and then approached by research nurses or orthopedic technicians for enrollment in the study before discharge home . We obtained informed consent from each patient , and all data were maintained outside the emergency departments in a central ized secure file system . The University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board approved the study . Intervention We design ed an intervention to overcome the many barriers that exist for primary care physicians who are trying to adopt evidence -based treatments for their patients with osteoporosis . Each of the 3 components of the intervention had published evidence of effectiveness ( 22 - 24 ) . Physician Reminders A reminder was generated for each patient and faxed to the primary care physician of record . The reminder notified physicians that their patient had recently been seen and treated in the emergency department for a wrist fracture and reminded them that their patient was now considered to be at increased risk for osteoporosis . Generating and sending the personalized and patient-specific reminder took about 6 minutes for each patient . Treatment Guidelines Generated and Endorsed by Opinion Leaders As part of the reminder , we provided brief evidence -based treatment recommendations . These guidelines were design ed to fit on the same page and emphasized 3 points : 1 ) The patient is at very high risk for osteoporosis and needs a bone mineral density measurement if one has not been performed in the past year ; 2 ) without treatment , the patient may be at increased risk for another fracture within the year ; and 3 ) bisphosphonate treatment will reduce the patient 's risk for fracture by about 50 % . Bisphosphonate alternatives ( for example , calcitonin , raloxifene , and hormone therapy ) were mentioned as second-line approved treatments because , at the time of study design , only the bisphosphonates had been demonstrated to prevent both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures . Using previously vali date d methods ( 25 , 26 ) , we recruited 5 osteoporosis opinion leaders who had been nominated by local primary care providers . The opinion leaders helped develop and then endorsed the guidelines by attaching their names and signatures . Patient Education We provided patients in the intervention group with a tailored , single-page summary of osteoporosis information that mirrored the physician material s described in the preceding paragraph . We reinforced these written material s with a brief telephone counseling session that took place within 1 week of the fracture . This counseling ( approximately 4 minutes per session ) reiterated the content of the written material s and encouraged patients to seek further information and counseling from their primary care physician . We did not provide intervention patients with any written material s or counseling regarding fall prevention or home safety . Control Patients ( Usual Care ) On the basis of surveys and in-depth interviews with emergency department physicians in Canada and the United States , the current st and ard of care for patients treated for a wrist fracture usually consists of 1 ) notification to the primary care physician of record that the patient was seen and treated and 2 ) information on follow-up plans . We ensured that such notifications occurred for all control patients . In addition , we enhanced usual care by ensuring that control patients received educational material s and telephone counseling regarding fall prevention and home safety . During the call , patients were encouraged to visit their primary care physician for more detailed advice and a medication review . They did not receive any counseling or educational material s about osteoporosis . Thus , control patients received the same amount of attention and care as the intervention patients . After the main study was completed , all control patients were crossed over to the osteoporosis intervention , and all intervention patients were provided with counseling regarding fall prevention and home safety . Outcomes and Measurements The primary study outcome was UNLABELLED We conducted a r and omized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries . Primary care physicians and their patients were r and omized to usual care , patient intervention only , physician intervention only , or both interventions . There was no difference in the probability of the primary composite endpoint ( BMD test or osteoporosis medication ) or in either of its components comparing the combined intervention group with usual care ( risk ratio = 1.04 ; 95 % CI , 0.85 - 1.26 ) . INTRODUCTION Fractures from osteoporosis are associated with substantial morbidity , mortality , and cost . However , only a minority of at-risk older adults receives screening and /or treatment for this condition . We evaluated the effect of educational interventions for osteoporosis targeting at-risk patients , primary care physicians , or both . MATERIAL S AND METHODS We conducted a r and omized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries . Primary care physicians and their patients were r and omized to usual care , patient intervention only , physician intervention only , or both interventions .  The at-risk patients were women > or=65 yr of age , men and women > or=65 yr of age with a prior fracture , and men and women > or=65 yr of age who used oral glucocorticoids .  The primary outcome studied was a composite of either undergoing a BMD test or initiating a medication used for osteoporosis . The secondary outcome was a hip , humerus , spine , or wrist fracture . RESULTS We r and omized 828 primary care physicians and their 13,455 eligible at-risk patients into four study arms . Physician and patient characteristics were very similar across all four groups . Across all four groups , the rate of the composite outcome was 10.3 per 100 person-years and did not differ between the usual care and the combined intervention groups ( p = 0.5 ) . In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models , there was no difference in the probability of the primary composite endpoint comparing the combined intervention group with usual care ( risk ratio = 1.04 ; 95 % CI , 0.85 - 1.26 ) . There was also no difference in either of the components of the composite endpoint . The probability of fracture during follow-up was 4.2 per 100 person-years and did not differ by treatment assignment ( p = 0.9 ) . CONCLUSIONS In this trial , a relatively brief program of patient and /or physician education did not work to improve the management of osteoporosis . More intensive efforts should be considered for future quality improvement programs for osteoporosis
One type A service with a valid control group showed a significant decrease in re-fractures .
Types A and B services were cost-effective , although definition of cost-effectiveness varied between studies .
Fully coordinated , intensive models of care for secondary fracture prevention are more effective in improving patient outcomes than approaches involving alerts and /or education only
Most people presenting with incident osteoporotic fractures are neither assessed nor treated for osteoporosis to reduce their risk of further fractures , despite the availability of effective treatments .
We evaluated the effectiveness of published models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures .