Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures in Residential Aged Care: Updated Consensus Recommendations

Hip fracture rate and osteoporosis treatment in Ontario: A population-based retrospective cohort study

This population-based study analyzes hip fracture and osteoporosis treatment rates among older adults, stratified by place of residence prior to fracture. Hip fracture rates were higher among older adults living in the community and discharged to long-term care (LTC) after fracture, compared to LTC residents and older adults living in the community. Only 23% of LTC residents at high fracture risk received osteoporosis treatment.

PURPOSE

This population-based study examines hip fracture rate and osteoporosis management among long-term care (LTC) residents > 65 years of age compared to community-dwelling older adults at the time of fracture and admitted to LTC after fracture, in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Healthcare utilization and administrative databases were linked using unique, encoded identifiers from the ICES Data Repository to estimate hip fractures (identified using the Public Health Agency of Canada algorithm and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes) and osteoporosis management (pharmacotherapy) among adults > 66 years from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2018. Sex-specific and age-standardized rates were compared by pre-fracture residency and discharge location (i.e., LTC to LTC, community to LTC, or community to community). Fracture risk was determined using the Fracture Risk Scale (FRS).

RESULTS

At baseline (2014/15), the overall age-standardized hip fracture rate among LTC residents was 223 per 10,000 person-years (173 per 10,000 females and 157 per 10,000 males), 509 per 10,000 person-years (468 per 10,000 females and 320 per 10,000 males) among the community to LTC cohort, and 31.5 per 10,000 person-years (43.1 per 10,000 females and 25.6 per 10,000 males). During the 5-year observation period, the overall annual average percent change (APC) for hip fracture increased significantly in LTC (AAPC =  + 8.6 (95% CI 5.0 to 12.3; p = 0.004) compared to the community to LTC group (AAPC =  + 2.5 (95% CI - 3.0 to 8.2; p = 0.248)) and the community-to-community cohort (AAPC - 3.8 (95% CI - 6.7 to - 0.7; p = 030)). However, hip fracture rate remained higher in the community to LTC group over the study period. There were 33,594 LTC residents identified as high risk of fracture (FRS score 4 +), of which 7777 were on treatment (23.3%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, hip fracture rates have increased in LTC and among community-dwelling adults admitted to LTC after fracture. However, hip fracture rates among community-dwelling adults have decreased over time. A non-significant increase in osteoporosis treatment rates was observed among LTC residents at high risk of fracture (FRS4 +). Residents in LTC are at very high risk for fracture and require individualized based on goals of care and life expectancy.

Prescriber Perspectives and Experiences with Deprescribing Versus Continuing Bisphosphonates in Older Nursing Home Residents with Dementia

BACKGROUND

Few guidelines address fracture prevention medication use in nursing home (NH) residents with dementia.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify factors that influence prescriber decision-making for deprescribing of bisphosphonates for older NH residents with dementia.

METHODS

We conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with prescribers who care for older adults with dementia in NHs.

MAIN MEASURES

Interview prompts addressed experiences treating fractures, benefits, and harms of bisphosphonates, and experiences with deprescribing. Coding was guided by the social-ecological framework including patient-level (intrapersonal) and external (interpersonal, system, community, and policy) influences.

RESULTS

Most prescribers were physicians (83%); 75% were female and 75% were White. Most (75%) spent less than half of their clinical effort in NHs and half were in the first decade of practice. Among patient-level influences, prescribers uniformly agreed that a prior bisphosphonate treatment course of several years, emergence of adverse effects, and changing goals of care or limited life expectancy were compelling reasons to deprescribe. External influences were frequently discussed as barriers to deprescribing. At the interpersonal level, prescribers noted that family/informal caregivers are diverse in their involvement in decision-making, and frequently concerned about the adverse effects of bisphosphonates, but perceive deprescribing as "withdrawing care." At the health system level, prescribers felt that frequent transitions make it difficult to determine duration of prior treatment and to implement deprescribing. At the policy level, prescribers highlighted the lack of guidelines addressing residents with limited mobility and dementia or criteria for deprescribing, including uncertainty in the setting of prior fractures and lack of bone densitometry in NHs.

CONCLUSION

Systems-level barriers to evaluating bone densitometry and treatment history in NHs may impede person-centered decision-making for fracture prevention. Further research is needed to evaluate the residual benefits of bisphosphonates in medically complex residents with limited mobility and dementia to inform recommendations for deprescribing versus continued use.

Recommendations on deprescribing of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis guidelines: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Advancing age, declining health status, and a shift in benefit/risk balance warrant judicious use of preventive medications in older persons, including consideration of deprescribing. Lack of guidance on deprescribing is a major barrier for prescribers to consider deprescribing in daily practice. The aim of this review was to evaluate to what extent osteoporosis guidelines include bisphosphonate deprescribing recommendations.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a systematic review, searching PubMed, Embase, and grey literature. We included guidelines on treatment of osteoporosis with bisphosphonates. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Recommendations for deprescribing were extracted, and quality of guidelines were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 9345 references, 42 guidelines were included. A total of 32 (76%) guidelines included deprescribing recommendations: 29 (69%) guidelines included non-specific deprescribing recommendations framed as a drug holiday, of which 2 (5%) also included specific deprescribing recommendations based on individual health context (e.g. life expectancy, frailty, function, preferences/goals). Twenty-four (57%) guidelines included practical deprescribing recommendations, and 27 (64%) guidelines included recommendations for when deprescribing should not be considered.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonate deprescribing recommendations in osteoporosis guidelines were primarily framed as drug holidays, with limited guidance on how to make individualized deprescribing decisions based on individual health context. This suggests a need for additional focus on deprescribing in osteoporosis guidelines.

Two-country comparison of the prescription of bone protection medication before and early after hip fracture

Pharmacological management of bone health warrants investigation into factors influencing initiation of bone protection medication (BPM) at discharge after a hip fracture. This sprint audit identified reasons attributed to low BPM treatment levels at hospital discharge which can guide improvement in the prevention of future fractures.

PURPOSE

To compare patient characteristics and Australian and New Zealand approaches to prescribing bone protection medication (BPM) pre- or post-hip fracture, determine reasons why BPM was not prescribed earlier post-fracture, and assess the generalisability of sprint audit and the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) patient cohorts.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of hip fracture patients from the ANZHFR aged ≥ 50 years (2016-2020) and consecutive patients from the 2021 BPM sprint audit. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with not prescribing BPM.

RESULTS

Of 55,618 patients admitted with a hip fracture in the ANZHFR, less than 10% of patients in Australia and New Zealand were taking BPM on admission, increasing to 22.4% in Australia and 27.8% in New Zealand on discharge. Registry patients who were younger (50-69 years), healthy (ASA grade 1), lived in a residential aged care facility, had impaired cognition, delirium identified, or were awaiting a specialist falls assessment were less likely to take BPM. Within the audit, 46.2% of patients in Australia and 39.2% in New Zealand did not have BPM in their discharge prescription. The most common reason for not prescribing BPM in Australia was low level of vitamin D (13.3%), and in New Zealand, renal impairment (14.8%). Sprint and registry patient characteristics were comparable in terms of patient age, sex, usual place of residence, and ASA grade.

CONCLUSIONS

BPM prescription early after hip fracture is low. Opportunities exist to increase the rate of prescription of medications known to prevent future fractures in this high-risk population.

Controversies in Osteoporosis Treatment of Nursing Home Residents

Osteoporotic fractures are a common and serious health problem for older adults living in nursing homes (NHs). Risk of fracture increases with age and dementia status, yet gaps in evidence result in controversies around when to start and stop treatment for osteoporosis in NH residents, particularly those who have high fracture risk but have limited life expectancy. In this article, we discuss these areas of controversy. We provide an overview of current guidelines that explicitly address osteoporosis treatment strategies for NH residents, review the evidence for osteoporosis medications in NH residents, and use these sources to suggest practical recommendations for clinical practice and for research. Three published guidelines (from the United States, Canada, and Australia) and several studies provide the current basis for clinical decisions about osteoporosis treatment for NH residents. Practical approaches may include broad use of vitamin D and selective use of osteoporosis medication based on risks, benefits, and goals of care. Clinicians still lack strong evidence to guide treatment of NH residents with advanced dementia, multimorbidity, or severe mobility impairment. Future priorities for research include identifying optimal approaches to risk stratification and prevention strategies for NH residents and evaluating the risk-benefit profile of pharmacologic treatments for osteoporosis NH residents across key clinical strata. In the absence of such evidence, decisions for initiating and continuing treatment should reflect a patient-centered approach that incorporates life expectancy, goals of care, and the potential burden of treatment.