Making sure the first osteoporotic fracture is also the last

Effectiveness of fracture liaison services in osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

In response to the gradual decline in the number of prescriptions for anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) following fragility fractures, fracture liaison services (FLSs) have been set up around the world with the aim of filling this treatment gap. Several studies have already reported the benefits of such organizations, particularly in reducing fracture risk, mortality rates and healthcare costs, and literature on FLSs has increased at a steady pace over time.

METHODS

A narrative review was conducted on the latest available findings on the effectiveness of FLSs. Various approaches to implementing an effective FLS program are discussed.

RESULTS

FLS programs have enhanced the management of osteoporosis-related fractures. However, several studies have highlighted that not all FLSs are necessarily effective in reducing subsequent fracture risk and mortality. Long-term AOM persistence and monitoring are another critical issue in FLS programs. A few studies have reported that FLSs are associated with an improvement in AOM persistence, regardless of the type of AOM. Practitioners in the FLS setting need to be aware of the impact of recency of fracture and fracture recurrence rates, and the need for timely interventions. The administration of zoledronic acid in an in-patient setting may improve AOM treatment rates in patients, who often encounter obstacles to outpatient follow-up. Introducing 'vertebral fracture identification services' in FLS programs is also an option. However, doing so leads to an increase in workload and this would need to be considered by any FLS that is considering introducing such a service. Evidence suggests that digital technologies can support (i) multidisciplinary teams in providing the best possible patient care based on current evidence, and (ii) patient self-management. However, as the methodological quality of many of the studies evaluating these technologies was poor, their validity of their results is limited.

CONCLUSION

Further research should focus on the optimal implementation of post-fracture care using automated systems, and standardized reporting of patient's characteristics and outcome measures using key performance indicators.

Management of bone fragility in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France: An analysis of a national health insurance claims database

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered a major risk factor for fragility fractures. We examined the quality of management of bone fragility in RA patients in a real-life setting.

METHODS

We performed a longitudinal case-control retrospective study in a 1/97th random sample of French health care claims database from 2014 to 2016 to determine the extent of bone fragility management in patients with RA compared with non-RA matched controls.

RESULTS

Compared to their non-RA controls (n=4652), RA patients (n=1008; mean age: 61.1years; methotrexate: 69.7%; other conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs): 26.8%; biologic: 26.0%; corticosteroids: 36.9%) had more reimbursements for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements (21.6 vs. 9.2%; OR=2.7 [2.3; 3.3]; P<0.01) and for bisphosphonates (7.1 vs. 3.6%, OR=2.0 [1.5; 2.7]; P<0.05). In patients exposed to corticosteroids, RA patients underwent more BMD assessments than non-RA controls (28.0 vs. 18.8%; OR=1.7 [1.3; 2.2]; P<0.05). RA patients exposed to corticosteroids were more likely to sustain fracture than non-exposed RA patients (5.7 vs. 2.4%, P<0.01). In addition, only when comparing patients exposed to corticosteroids, was there statistical evidence of an association between RA and an increased fracture rate (6.2 vs. 3.5%, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with RA exposed to corticosteroids are at high risk of fracture. Patients with RA had more bone fragility management than controls.