Improving osteoporosis management in patients with fractures

The integrated structure of care: evidence for the efficacy of models of clinical governance in the prevention of fragility fractures after recent sentinel fracture after the age of 50 years

Randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the implementation of clinical governance models, in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture, were examined. Literature was systematically reviewed and summarized by a panel of experts who formulated recommendations for the Italian guideline.

PURPOSE

After experiencing a fracture, several strategies may be adopted to reduce the risk of recurrent fragility fractures and associated morbidity and mortality. Clinical governance models, such as the fracture liaison service (FLS), have been introduced for the identification, treatment, and monitoring of patients with secondary fragility fractures. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the association between multidisciplinary care systems and several outcomes in patients with a fragility fracture in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were investigated up to December 2020 to update the search of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed clinical governance models in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture were eligible. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic therapy initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, and mortality risk, while secondary outcomes were quality of life and physical performance.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs and 62 observational studies, ranging from very low to low quality for bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, mortality, met our inclusion criteria. The implementation of clinical governance models compared to their pre-implementation or standard care/non-attenders significantly improved BMD testing rate, and increased the number of patients who initiated antiosteoporotic therapy and enhanced their adherence to the medications. Moreover, the treatment by clinical governance model respect to standard care/non-attenders significantly reduced the risk of subsequent fracture and mortality. The integrated structure of care enhanced the quality of life and physical function among patients with fragility fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, clinicians should promote the management of patients experiencing a fragility fracture through structured and integrated models of care. The task force has formulated appropriate recommendations on the implementation of multidisciplinary care systems in patients with, or at risk of, fragility fractures.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

2022 Prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases in Of the Russian Federation. National guidelines

.

What is the Role of Coordinators in the Secondary Fracture Prevention Program?

Background

The purpose of this study is to search for reports on the clinical effectiveness of FLS being implemented worldwide through the systematic review, analyze the roles of coordinators in each study, and provide basic data for the development of future coordinator education programs.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature using the Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library was conducted for using the following keywords: ‘osteoporosis’ AND ‘fractures’ AND ’secondary prevention’. Finally, 65 studies are included in this study.

Results

At the coordinator-based fracture liaison service (FLS) center, the coordinator (often a nurse) acts as a central player in the establishing of patient connections, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, and attending physicians. Coordinators help bridge the nursing gap by supporting identification, investigation, initiation of treatment, and patient follow-up. Medics has opened the way to effectively manage patients at high risk of developing another fracture. In addition, nurses are in a unique and important role as nurses responsible for enhancing their daily lives by building relationships with patients and families.

Conclusions

The coordinator in the FLS program plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of vulnerable fractures, as well as in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis and in maintaining continuity of treatment. In the future, the broader role of coordinators should be systematically organized and developed into accredited educational programs.

Identifying characteristics of an effective fracture liaison service: systematic literature review

Fracture liaison services (FLS) have been demonstrated to improve outcomes following osteoporotic fracture. The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to determine the characteristics of an FLS that lead to improved patient outcomes. We conducted a SLR, including articles published between 2000 and February 2017, using global (Medline, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library) and local databases. Studies including patients aged ≥ 50 years with osteoporotic fractures enrolled in an FLS were assessed. Information extracted from each article included key person coordinating the FLS (physician, nurse or other healthcare professional), setting (hospital vs community), intensity (single vs multiple), duration (long vs short term), fracture type and gender. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was conducted based on the key person coordinating the FLS. Out of 7236 articles, 57 were considered to be high quality and identified for further analysis. The SLR identified several components which contributed to FLS success, including multidisciplinary involvement, driven by a dedicated case manager, regular assessment and follow-up, multifaceted interventions and patient education. Meta-analytic data confirm the effectiveness of an FLS following an osteoporotic fracture: approximate 27% increase in the likelihood of BMD testing and up to 21% increase in the likelihood of treatment initiation compared with usual care. The balance of evidence indicates that the multifaceted FLS and dedicated coordination are important success factors that contribute to effective FLS interventions which reduce fracture-related morbidity and mortality.

Effect of a dedicated osteoporosis health professional on screening and treatment in outpatients presenting with acute low trauma non-hip fracture: a systematic review

The aim of this study was to identify the effect a dedicated osteoporosis health professional on screening and treatment in outpatients presenting with acute low trauma fracture. A dedicated osteoporosis health professional improved investigation and management of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis management was enhanced, leading to the potential for future fracture prevention.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to review the effect a dedicated osteoporosis health professional on screening and treatment in outpatients presenting with acute low trauma fracture.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Current Contents Connect, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, and Cochrane from database development to April 2013, examined grey literature, and completed manual searches of reference lists to identify English language research that examined the effect that dedicated health professional input had on osteoporosis management with acute low trauma non-hip fracture in the outpatient setting. Outcomes were defined as the proportion of patients with investigation (bone mineral density (BMD) or blood screen); treated with vitamin D supplementation or antiresorptive agent; documented BMD reading change; recurrent fracture occurrence; or referral to specialist bone (osteoporosis) clinic.

RESULTS

All studies with a suitable control group showed an increase in BMD screening in the intervention group (odds ratio (OR) 5.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.3-6.9, P<0.0001). The effect on treatment initiation showed a significantly increased rate of antiresorptive±vitamin D therapy (OR 5.3, 95% CI 4.1-6.8, P<0.0001). No studies examined improvement or decline in BMD guiding clinical practice as an outcome. Two studies showed reduced fracture recurrence. The osteoporosis health professional significantly increased referrals to a specialist bone clinic (OR 9.6, 95% CI 6.2-14.6, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a dedicated osteoporosis health professional coordinating a targeted intervention for outpatients with low trauma non-hip fracture improves investigation and management of osteoporosis, resulting in the potential for future fracture prevention.

Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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. We searched eight medical literature databases to identify reports published between 1996 and 2011, describing models of care for secondary fracture prevention. Information extracted from each publication included study design, patient characteristics, identification strategies, assessment and treatment initiation strategies, as well as outcome measures (rates of bone mineral density (BMD) testing, osteoporosis treatment initiation, adherence, re-fractures and cost-effectiveness). Meta-analyses of studies with valid control groups were conducted for two outcome measures: BMD testing and osteoporosis treatment initiation. Out of 574 references, 42 articles were identified as analysable. These studies were grouped into four general models of care-type A: identification, assessment and treatment of patients as part of the service; type B: similar to A, without treatment initiation; type C: alerting patients plus primary care physicians; and type D: patient education only. Meta-regressions revealed a trend towards increased BMD testing (p = 0.06) and treatment initiation (p = 0.03) with increasing intensity of intervention. 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.

Active Referral Intervention following Fragility Fractures Leads to Enhanced Osteoporosis Follow-Up Care

At one major urban academic medical center, patients aged 50 years and older with fragility fractures were identified and scheduled or assisted in referral into osteoporosis medical management appointments. We evaluated the efficacy of an active intervention program at overcoming the logistical barriers and improving proper osteoporosis follow-up for persons who have sustained a fragility fracture. Of 681 patients treated for defined fractures, 168 were eligible and consented for the study of fragility fractures. Of those enrolled, 91 (54.2%) had appropriate osteoporosis follow-up on initial interview, and overall 120 (71.4%) had successful osteoporosis follow-up following our active intervention. Seventy patients (41.7%) were deemed to have no osteoporosis follow-up, and, of these, 48 were successfully referred to a scheduling coordinator. The scheduling coordinator was able to contact 37 (77%) patients to schedule proper follow-up, and, of these, 29 (78.4%) confirmed receiving an appropriate follow-up appointment. Active intervention and assisted scheduling for patients with recent fragility fractures improved the self-reported rate of osteoporosis follow-up from 54.2% to 71.4%.

A review of patient-centred post-fracture interventions in the context of theories of health behaviour change

The purpose of this literature review is to determine whether and to what extent current post-fracture osteoporosis interventions utilize theories of health behaviour change and whether those that are theory-based are more successful in producing desired behaviour changes. Studies were identified by applying additional criteria to the final selection stage of a systematic review of non-surgical osteoporosis interventions in the orthopaedic environment. We identified 42 primary studies targeted at patients and improving post-fracture osteoporosis care. As well as describing the studies (in terms of design, population, interventions, outcomes), we focused on theoretical framework and elements of behaviour change models. The 42 studies included in this review utilized a variety of post-fracture interventions; however, none of them reported using an underlying theoretical base. Only three studies drew on what we felt to be elements of a theoretical framework. The lack of theoretically based studies points to a currently under-utilized area of behaviour change research that could be applied to post-fracture interventions in order to make them more effective. Despite an abundance of literature supporting theories of behaviour change, post-fracture osteoporosis interventions do not report utilizing these theories. Theories of behaviour change could be applied to post-fracture osteoporosis interventions to explain why patients initiate osteoporosis management. Future research should explore the application of theories of health behaviour change to post-fracture interventions.

Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients

This study aims to determine osteoporosis (OP) investigation and treatment within post-fracture initiatives conducted in fracture clinics and other orthopedic environments. A systematic review was conducted. Eligibility criteria were: hip fracture patients plus all other fracture patients presenting with a fragility fracture, orthopedic setting where orthopedic physicians/staff were involved, intervention to improve OP management, primary data on ≥20 patients from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other study designs. We calculated outcome data within 6 months of screening from an intention-to-treat principle to derive an equated proportion (EP) across interventions. Outcomes were: (1) proportion of patients investigated with bone densitometry, (2) proportion of patients initiating OP medication, and (3) proportion of patients taking OP medication. We identified 2,259 citations, of which 57 articles that included 64 intervention groups were eligible. The median EP for patients investigated was 43% and the 75th percentile was 71%. The median EP for medication initiation was 22% and the 75th percentile was 34%. The median EP for medication taking was 27.5% and the 75th percentile was 43%. The EPs for all outcomes were higher for interventions with dedicated personnel to implement the intervention and those within which bone mineral density testing and/or treatment were included. In studies with an EP, up to 71% of patients were investigated for OP, but <35% initiated medication, and <45% were taking medication within 6 months of screening. Calculating an EP allowed us to compare outcomes across the studies, therefore capturing both RCTs and other study designs typical of real-world settings.

Osteoporosis in men: the value of laboratory testing

Evaluation of 234 men referred for osteoporosis found many with undiagnosed secondary causes and multiple unrecognized risk factors.

INTRODUCTION

Studies in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis suggest that many have unrecognized disorders affecting bone. Men are considered more likely to have underlying, possibly correctable causes. We studied the prevalence of risk factors, secondary causes, and laboratory abnormalities in men with and without previously known causes for osteoporosis.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of 234 men with osteoporosis diagnosed by bone mineral density testing. In addition to screening chemistries, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, testosterone, luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and spot urinary calcium-to-creatinine ratio were measured.

RESULTS

The mean age was 70.6 years and mean weight was 76.4 kg. The mean T-score for spine, femoral neck, and forearm was -2.2, -2.4, and -2.3, respectively. Evaluation revealed secondary osteoporosis in 75% overall including hypogonadism, vitamin D deficiency, hypercalciuria, subclinical hyperthyroidism, and hyperparathyroidism. In those men with known secondary osteoporosis at the time of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry testing, additional diagnoses were found in just over half. Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency were very common, and other common risk factors for osteoporosis included age >65, current smoking, and prior fracture. Half of the subjects had ≥ 4 risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation revealed a specific cause in about half of men thought to have primary osteoporosis. Among men with known secondary osteoporosis, additional risk factors and secondary causes were frequently identified. In conclusion, a relatively modest evaluation of men with osteoporosis will often provide useful information.

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

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

[Secondary prevention in osteoporotic fractures. The GIOS project]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this report is to describe and evaluate the results of a secondary prevention program in osteoporotic fractures in 70 Spanish hospitals. This project was started to improve the treatment of these fractures, with the inhospital implementation of software collecting epidemiological data on patients with osteoporotic fractures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective case study was conducted between March 2003 and March 2006 involving a consecutive sample of 24,534 patients with established fragility fracture seen in 70 hospitals. The study exclusion criterion was secondary osteoporotic fracture. The project consists of implementing software in hospitals, designed to collect such epidemiological data among these patients. Based on this information and on the published scientific evidence, the software automatically generates drug therapy recommendations and non pharmacologic measures of prevention to be included in the discharge report.

RESULTS

The number of patients with osteoporotic fractures included in the program totalled 24,534 subjects. Of these patients, only 22.7% were receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Implementation of the program made it possible to discharge 19,033 patients (77.6%) with prescribed treatment, but in only 15,153 patients (61.8%) the treatment was correct.

CONCLUSIONS

The GIOS project has proved effective in increasing the identification of fragility fractures and improve the percentage of secondary prevention measures, both pharmacological and non pharmacological, for patients with these fractures.

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

BACKGROUND

Screening programs to manage osteoporosis in fracture clinic environments have had varying success in terms of increasing rates of investigation and initiation of treatment for the disease.

METHODS

We determined rates of postfracture investigation and care for osteoporosis in patients screened through a coordinator-based initiative in a community hospital fracture clinic. A coordinator screened outpatients, educated them about osteoporosis, advised them to see their family physician for assessment and/or treatment, and performed follow-up at six months. Men who were fifty years of age or older and women who were forty years of age or older and had a fragility fracture were eligible.

RESULTS

Of 505 patients enrolled at baseline, 332 (66%) returned the follow-up questionnaire; 51% of those patients reported having had a bone mineral density test after screening and 26% had initiated first-line treatment (35% if the patients who had already initiated treatment at baseline were excluded) and an additional 23% were continuing treatment since baseline. After adjustment for demographic and baseline variables, patients who had initiated first-line treatment after screening were 4.15 times more likely to have had a bone mineral density test after screening than patients who had never initiated treatment and 11.67 times more likely to have had a bone mineral density test after screening than patients who had continued treatment since baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

A coordinator-based osteoporosis screening program was associated with osteoporosis investigation and treatment. A postfracture bone mineral density test was highly associated with treatment initiation.

'If it was osteoporosis, I would have really hurt myself.' Ambiguity about osteoporosis and osteoporosis care despite a screening programme to educate fragility fracture patients

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Behaviour change models suggest that people need clear information about their susceptibility to disease and knowledge of treatment recommendations in order to change their behaviour. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine fracture patients' understanding of osteoporosis (OP) and OP care after being screened for, and educated about, OP in a fracture clinic.

METHODS

We conducted five focus groups with 24 patients (18 women, six men) aged 47-80 years old who were screened for OP through an urban fracture clinic. Participants were asked about their awareness of OP and their status of bone mineral density (BMD) testing and OP treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty participants vocalized at least one expression of ambiguity regarding OP and/or treatment recommendations conveyed by the screening programme staff. Participants were ambiguous about the cause of their fracture, the BMD test process and results, and the presentation of OP. They were also ambiguous about the amount and type of medication and supplements recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a standardized screening programme in which OP was addressed in fragility fracture patients, ambiguity about diagnosis, testing and treatment were described. Efforts to clarify information relayed to fracture patients about their condition and recommended care need to extend beyond the fracture clinic so that health care providers can promote long-term adherence to these recommendations.

Glucocorticoids and the risk of osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) refers to a clinical condition in which a class of corticosteroids increases the susceptibility of bones to fracture. Numerous recent studies have improved our understanding of the underlying biology of this condition, whereas data from randomized controlled trials have provided clinicians with more options for prevention of GIO.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pathophysiology and epidemiology of GIO, as well as current pharmacologic treatment and prevention modalities available. To review the state of healthcare provider concordance with GIO prevention guidelines.

METHODS

Representative examples of various cellular and molecular processes underlying GIO were included, with an emphasis towards more recent discoveries. The data used to describe the epidemiology of GIO were derived from both randomized controlled studies and observational studies, framed through a discussion of known osteoporosis risk factors.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Progress has been made in clarifying the pathophysiologic mechanisms that result in GIO. Although the options for preventions and treatment of GIO continue to expand, provider compliance with preventive measures remains suboptimal.

A demonstration project of a multi-component educational intervention to improve integrated post-fracture osteoporosis care in five rural communities in Ontario, Canada

This study evaluated a multi-component intervention (educational materials and outreach visits) to increase knowledge and improve post-fracture care management in five rural communities in Canada. One hundred and twenty-five patients pre- intervention and 149 post-intervention were compared. No significant improvement in post-fracture care was documented suggesting that a more targeted intervention is needed.

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the majority of patients with a low trauma fracture are under-investigated and under-treated for osteoporosis. We set out to evaluate an educational intervention on increasing knowledge of post-fracture care among health care professionals (HCPs) and fracture patients and on improving post-fracture management.

METHODS

We studied five rural communities in Ontario, Canada, using a multi-component intervention ("Behind the Break"), including educational material for HCPs and patients and educational outreach visits to physicians. The study had a historical control, non-equivalent pre/post design. Telephone surveys were carried out with individuals > or =40 years of age who had a low trauma fracture in 2003 (n = 125) or in 2005 (n = 149). Family physicians and emergency department staff were also surveyed.

RESULTS

A total of 4,207 educational packages were distributed. Seventy-three percent of family physicians had an outreach visit. Two-thirds indicated that they received enough information about post-fracture follow-up to incorporate it into their practice. Despite this, no significant improvement in post-fracture care was documented (32% in the "pre" group had a bone mineral density test and 25% in the "post" group). Of those diagnosed with osteoporosis, the majority were prescribed a bone-sparing medication (63% "pre" and 80% "post").

CONCLUSION

A more targeted intervention linking fracture patients to their physician needs to be evaluated in rural communities.

An outreach program improved osteoporosis management after a fracture

This longitudinal retrospective cohort study evaluated implementation of an intervention to improve management of osteoporosis after a fracture in a nonprofit group-model health maintenance organization (HMO) in the U.S. Pacific Northwest with 480,000 members and electronic medical record data. Participants were female HMO members aged 67 and older who sustained a qualifying clinical fracture(s) and who had not received a bone mineral density (BMD) measurement or osteoporosis treatment in the 12 months before the fracture (N=3,588). Phase 1 included outreach to clinicians and patients; Phase 2 added clinician and staff incentives. Primary outcome was "osteoporosis management"--receipt of a BMD measurement or osteoporosis medication in the 6 months after an index fracture. Before the intervention, 13.4% (95% confidence interval (CI)=12.0-14.8%) of patients had received osteoporosis management, and the time trend was not significant. Post-intervention, the probability of osteoporosis management increased on average 3.1% (95% CI=2.6-3.5%) every 2 months throughout both study phases without a significant added improvement in Phase 2. Improvement varied according to clinic and was less likely for patients with dementia. Overall, the probability of osteoporosis management increased from the baseline level of 13.4% to 44.0% (95% CI=40.0-48.0%) by the end of the study period (20 months post-intervention). The study found that an outreach program to primary care providers and patients improved the management of osteoporosis after a fracture. If widely implemented, this intervention could substantially improve the secondary prevention of osteoporosis. More-individualized interventions may be necessary for high-risk subgroups.

The need for increasing awareness of osteoporosis in men

Awareness of the need to evaluate men for osteoporosis is almost nonexistent among health care providers. Osteoporosis is a silent disorder in both men and women until fracture occurs. Yet, screening for osteoporosis is particularly important in men because fragility fractures are more likely to lead to fatal consequences than in women. Without a diagnosis of osteoporosis, treatment interventions that can prevent fractures in men are not initiated. Advancement of better health outcomes for men at risk for osteoporosis begins with a greater awareness of the need for osteoporosis screening and treatment whenever appropriate. The primary objective of this review article is to report on study findings that document the need for more clinical attention to osteoporosis in men. It is important to know how osteoporosis in men differs from osteoporosis in women, the classification into type 1 and type 2 primary osteoporosis and secondary osteoporosis, and how to measure bone mineral density in men. In addition, there is a great need to develop evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in men.

Barriers in the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

To determine present practice for the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) in veterans; to characterize provider knowledge, beliefs, and practice behaviors regarding management of GIOP; and to identify potential barriers and interventions in the management of GIOP.

METHODS

To characterize current management of GIOP in an academic veterans administration medical center, we conducted a retrospective chart review of 100 patients who were prescribed a 90-day supply of prednisone. To assess clinicians' knowledge of GIOP clinical guidelines and perceptions of GIOP management, primary care clinicians and subspecialists completed a questionnaire and participated in focus groups.

RESULTS

Chart review revealed that only 32 of 100 patients receiving long-term glucocorticoid treatment underwent bone mineral density testing, and only 32 patients were prescribed the recommended calcium supplements. Of the 23 providers who completed the questionnaire and participated in the focus groups, 4 correctly identified both the dose and duration of glucocorticoid use at which GIOP prevention measures should be instituted. Common GIOP management barriers cited by participants were lack of knowledge, having limited time during the clinic visit to address all problems, patient nonadherence, and system problems. The most commonly mentioned potential interventions were the use of computerized clinical reminders and patient education.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians frequently do not follow recommended guidelines for the management of GIOP. Improving the management of GIOP will likely require a fundamental redesigning of care processes for this disorder in order to overcome provider, patient-related, and system barriers.

Monitoring of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement in clinical practice

Bone densitometry has become the "gold standard" in osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment evaluation. It has also become more and more common to perform a second dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurement to monitor bone mineral density (BMD) status or the effect of therapeutic intervention. When a second measurement is performed on a patient, the clinician needs to distinguish between a true change in BMD and a random fluctuation related to variability in the measurement procedure. The reproducibility of DXA measurements is claimed to be good. Such variability is due to multiple causes, such as device errors, technician variability, patients' movements, and variation due to other unpredictable sources. The precision error is usually expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV). However, several other statistics to express reproducibility exist such as the smallest detectable difference (SDD) or the least significant change (LSC). The SDD represents a cut-off that can be measured in an individual and is usually considered more useful than the CV in clinical practice. Indeed, the use of the SDD is preferable to the use of the CV and LSC because of its independence from BMD level and its expression in absolute units (g/cm2). At each measurement center, the SDD must be calculated from in vivo reproducibility data. The choice of the optimum time and site for performing follow-up scans depends on the ratio of the expected BMD treatment effect to the precision of the measurements.

Reproducibility of bone mineral density measurements using dual X-ray absorptiometry in daily clinical practice

Bone mineral density (BMD) measurements are frequently performed repeatedly for each patient. Subsequent BMD measurements allow reproducibility to be assessed. Previous studies have suggested that reproducibility may be influenced by age and clinical status. The purpose of the study was to examine the reproducibility of BMD by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and to investigate the practical value of different measures of reproducibility in three distinct groups of subjects: healthy young volunteers, postmenopausal women and patients with chronic rheumatic diseases. Two hundred twenty-two subjects underwent two subsequent BMD measurements of the spine and hip. There were 60 young healthy subjects, 102 postmenopausal women and 60 patients with chronic rheumatic diseases (33 rheumatoid arthritis, 10 ankylosing spondylitis and 10 other systemic diseases). Forty-five patients (75%) among the third group were receiving corticosteroids. Reproducibility was expressed as the smallest detectable difference (SDD), coefficient of variation (CV), least significant change (LSC) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sources of variation were investigated by linear regression analysis. The median interval between measurements was 0 days (range 0-7). The mean difference (SD) between the measurements (g/cm2) was -0.0001 (+/-0.003) and -0.0004 (+/-0.002) at L1-L4 and the total hip, respectively. At L1-L4 and the total hip, SDD (g/cm2) was +/-0.04 and +/-0.02, CV (%) was 2.02 and 1.29, and LSC (%) 5.60 and 3.56, respectively. The ICC at the spine and hip was 0.99 and 0.99, respectively. Only a minimal difference existed between the groups. Reproducibility in the three groups studied was good. In a repeated DXA scan, a BMD change, the least significant change (LSC) or the SDD should be regarded as significant. Use of the SDD is preferable to use of the CV and LSC because of its independence from BMD and its expression in absolute units. Expressed as SDD, a BMD change of at least +/-0.04 g/cm2 at L1-L4 and +/-0.02 g/cm2 at the total hip should be considered significant. This reproducibility seems independent from age and clinical status and improved in the hips by measuring the dual femur.