Medication initiation rates are not directly comparable across secondary fracture prevention programs: reporting standards based on a systematic review

Examining treatment targets and equity in bone-active medication use within secondary fracture prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review seeks to evaluate the proportion of fragility fracture patients screened in secondary fracture prevention programs who were indicated for pharmacological treatment, received prescriptions for bone-active medications, and initiated the prescribed medication. Additionally, the study aims to analyze equity in pharmacological treatment by examining equity-related variables including age, sex, gender, race, education, income, and geographic location.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to ascertain the proportion of fragility fracture patients indicated for treatment who received prescriptions and/or initiated bone-active medication through secondary fracture prevention programs. We also examined treatment indications reported in studies and eligibility criteria to confirm patients who were eligible for treatment. To compute the pooled proportions for medication prescription and initiation, we carried out a single group proportional meta-analysis. We also extracted the proportions of patients who received a prescription and/or began treatment based on age, sex, race, education, socioeconomic status, location, and chronic conditions.

RESULTS

This review included 122 studies covering 114 programs. The pooled prescription rate was 77%, and the estimated medication initiation rate was 71%. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in treatment initiation between the Fracture Liaison Service and other programs. Across all studies, age, sex, and socioeconomic status were the only equity variables reported in relation to treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review emphasizes the need for standardized reporting guidelines in post-fracture interventions. Moreover, considering equity stratifiers in the analysis of health outcomes will help address inequities and improve the overall quality and reach of secondary fracture prevention programs.

Patients not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication now prescribed medication through Ontario FLS

In an Ontario fracture liaison service (FLS), we compared medication prescription rates among patients not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to those with no previous prescription. Prescription rates were similar between these two groups of patients. The FLS provided a secondary opportunity for patients to initiate bone active medication.

PURPOSE

We compared bone active medication prescription rates among patients presenting to an Ontario fracture liaison service (FLS) who reported not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to those with no history of prescription.

METHODS

Eligible patients were those screened in 39 fracture clinics between July 1, 2017, and September 15, 2019, who were not taking bone active medication at the time of screening and classified as high risk for future fracture based on CAROC or FRAX. Sociodemographic and clinical risk factor variables were assessed at screening. Bone active medication prescription rate was assessed within 6 months of screening and defined as having received a prescription for the medication from either a specialist or primary care provider. In cases where a specialist report was not available, patient self-reported data were collected. The chi-square test of independence was used to assess differences in prescription rates.

RESULTS

Of 17,575 patients screened, eligible patients were 350 with a previous prescription and 2644 without a previous prescription. Compared with patients who reported no previous prescription, those who had a previous prescription were older, more likely to be female and to report a previous fracture, and less likely to smoke. There was no statistically significant difference between the medication prescription rate of patients with a previous prescription (73.7%) compared to patients with no previous prescription (70.7%) (p = 0.157).

CONCLUSION

A large jurisdiction-wide FLS approach provided a secondary opportunity to patients who were not taking a previously prescribed bone active medication to initiate that medication.

Two-year adherence to treatment and associated factors in a fracture liaison service in Spain

A fracture liaison service in Spain is able to maintain 73 % of the patients on antiresorptive 2 years after the fracture.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 2-year effectiveness of a program for the secondary prevention of fractures.

METHODS

Fragility fractures in patients over 50 attending the emergency room in our centre are captured by the recruitment system of a secondary prevention program. The unit is attended by a nurse, coordinated by two rheumatologists and with the collaboration of primary care consisted of a training program and annual meetings. The outcome of the program was analysed 2 years after implementation, including: (1) percentage of attendees/eligible; (2) percentage of attendees who start treatment with antiresorptive; (3) percentage of patients who retain treatment after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months; and (4) factors associated to adherence.

RESULTS

After 2 years of implementation, the program detected 1674 patients with fracture, of whom 759 finally entered the program (57 % of eligible). After 3 months, 82 % of patients prescribed an antiresorptive started treatment. After a year, 52 % of the patients in the program, 72 % of those of a prescribed treatment, were taking antiresorptives. Adherence at 24 months among those who had prescribed anti-fracture drugs was 73 %. Factors associated with adherence at 12 months were female sex (76 vs 45 %; p = 0.01) and previous treatment with antiresorptive (86 vs 68 %; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In Spain, a program designed to prevent secondary fragility fractures based on the collaboration between primary care and rheumatology seems effective in terms of recruitment of patients and adherence to treatment in the mid/long-term.

What Do We Know about Individuals Who Are Assessed as Being at Moderate Risk for Future Fracture in Canada?

OBJECTIVE

We examined what was known about individuals in Canada who were assessed as being at moderate risk for future fracture.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. Eligible articles were Canadian studies published from 2010 onwards reporting on primary data that included patients at moderate risk for future fracture. We limited the search to Canada as fracture risk categorization is unique to each country. Studies were identified by searching relevant databases. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts to determine each study's eligibility. General information about each study, demographic information about the moderate risk groups (including tool used to determine moderate risk (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC)), and outcomes (number of patients: recommended treatment, prescribed treatment, initiating treatment, persisting with treatment after six months, who re-fractured, who died) were documented.

RESULTS

We identified 1193 papers which were further screened for eligibility. Of the 1193 identified, 7 were eligible for the review but only 4 articles contained demographic or outcome data on moderate risk patients. In one study, 1.8% of moderate risk patients died over a mean 5.3 years of observation and in three studies, the risk of fracture was 5.9% over a median of 3 years of follow-up, 8.3% over a mean of 5.4 years, and 14.7% over 10 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide knowledge gap in the literature concerning individuals who are assessed as moderate risk for future fracture in Canada.

Secondary prevention after an osteoporosis-related fracture: an overview

This article is an overview of the status of postfracture secondary prevention programs. The concept of fracture risk, the inclusion of fracture risk in clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis, and how fracture risk has contributed to the development of postfracture secondary prevention programs are described. The scope of postfracture secondary prevention programs, the gaps in care that persist despite these initiatives, and the potential reasons for these gaps are also described. Recommendations for future research in the area of postfracture secondary prevention are provided.