Impact of systematic implementation of a clinical case finding strategy on diagnosis and therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Design of a Computer Model for the Identification of Adolescent Swimmers at Risk of Low BMD

This paper aims to elaborate a decision tree for the early detection of adolescent swimmers at risk of presenting low bone mineral density (BMD), based on easily measurable fitness and performance variables. The BMD of 78 adolescent swimmers was determined using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans at the hip and subtotal body. The participants also underwent physical fitness (muscular strength, speed, and cardiovascular endurance) and swimming performance assessments. A gradient-boosting machine regression tree was built to predict the BMD of the swimmers and to further develop a simpler individual decision tree. The predicted BMD was strongly correlated with the actual BMD values obtained from the DXA (r = 0.960, p < 0.001; root mean squared error = 0.034 g/cm2). According to a simple decision tree (74% classification accuracy), swimmers with a body mass index (BMI) lower than 17 kg/m2 or a handgrip strength inferior to 43 kg with the sum of both arms could be at a higher risk of having a low BMD. Easily measurable fitness variables (BMI and handgrip strength) could be used for the early detection of adolescent swimmers who are at risk of suffering from low BMD.

Swedish osteoporosis care

The objective of this study was to review and describe the current state of Swedish osteoporosis care and to highlight ongoing challenges. This report encompasses quantitative health outcomes based on Swedish registry data as well as organizational and management aspects. Swedish osteoporosis care is characterized by a significant burden of disease, difficulties in identifying high-risk patients, and fragmented pathways for patients in need of secondary fracture prevention. This report aimed to describe the current state, gaps, and challenges in Swedish osteoporosis care, using Swedish national databases, questionnaires, and interviews with healthcare representatives. A secondary aim was to develop quality and process measures to compare differences between counties and to use those measures to describe the interaction between quantitative health outcomes and aspects of care organization and management. In conjunction with fractures, a considerably smaller proportion of men are treated than women, and a smaller proportion of older women are treated compared to younger groups. Between 3 and 16 % of patients receive treatment after a fracture, and the treatment rate in this patient group can likely increase. In addition to an unsatisfactory treatment rate, a limited number of those treated continue treatment throughout the recommended treatment durations, leading to increased risk of fracture. With a substantial variation between counties, there is a clear difficulty to identify non-persistent patients and switch to an alternative treatment. Collaboration around the patient across specialties has been lacking, and systems for secondary prevention have been concentrated to a few counties. However, when this study was conducted, there was a general trend towards implementing regional care programs. This report suggests possible strategies for improving quality of care and, hopefully, it can provide a basis for future evaluations and regional improvement of osteoporosis care in Sweden and other countries.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for DXA-determined osteoporosis or low bone density. Commonly evaluated risk instruments showed high sensitivity approaching or exceeding 90% at particular thresholds within various populations but low specificity at thresholds required for high sensitivity. Simpler instruments, such as OST, generally performed as well as or better than more complex instruments.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study is to systematically review the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-determined osteoporosis or low bone density.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Multiple literature sources were searched, and data extracted and analyzed from included references.

RESULTS

One hundred eight references met inclusion criteria. Studies assessed many instruments in 34 countries, most commonly the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) instrument, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), and body weight criteria. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating OST using a cutoff threshold of <1 to identify US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at the femoral neck provided summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of 89% (95%CI 82-96%) and 41% (95%CI 23-59%), respectively. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating OST using a cutoff threshold of 3 to identify US men with osteoporosis at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine provided summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of 88% (95%CI 79-97%) and 55% (95%CI 42-68%), respectively. Frequently evaluated instruments each had thresholds and populations for which sensitivity for osteoporosis or low bone mass detection approached or exceeded 90% but always with a trade-off of relatively low specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Commonly evaluated clinical risk assessment instruments each showed high sensitivity approaching or exceeding 90% for identifying individuals with DXA-determined osteoporosis or low BMD at certain thresholds in different populations but low specificity at thresholds required for high sensitivity. Simpler instruments, such as OST, generally performed as well as or better than more complex instruments.

Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors

BACKGROUND

Health information technology (HIT) systems have the potential to reduce delayed, missed or incorrect diagnoses. We describe and classify the current state of diagnostic HIT and identify future research directions.

METHODS

A multi-pronged literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, backwards and forwards reference searches and contributions from domain experts. We included HIT systems evaluated in clinical and experimental settings as well as previous reviews, and excluded radiology computer-aided diagnosis, monitor alerts and alarms, and studies focused on disease staging and prognosis. Articles were organised within a conceptual framework of the diagnostic process and areas requiring further investigation were identified.

RESULTS

HIT approaches, tools and algorithms were identified and organised into 10 categories related to those assisting: (1) information gathering; (2) information organisation and display; (3) differential diagnosis generation; (4) weighing of diagnoses; (5) generation of diagnostic plan; (6) access to diagnostic reference information; (7) facilitating follow-up; (8) screening for early detection in asymptomatic patients; (9) collaborative diagnosis; and (10) facilitating diagnostic feedback to clinicians. We found many studies characterising potential interventions, but relatively few evaluating the interventions in actual clinical settings and even fewer demonstrating clinical impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic HIT research is still in its early stages with few demonstrations of measurable clinical impact. Future efforts need to focus on: (1) improving methods and criteria for measurement of the diagnostic process using electronic data; (2) better usability and interfaces in electronic health records; (3) more meaningful incorporation of evidence-based diagnostic protocols within clinical workflows; and (4) systematic feedback of diagnostic performance.

A clinical decision rule to enhance targeted bone mineral density testing in healthy mid-life women

SUMMARY

The rates of bone mineral density testing for osteoporosis among healthy mid-life women are high, although their osteoporosis or fracture risk is low. To reduce unnecessary testing, we created and evaluated a tool to guide bone density testing based on the woman's age, weight, fracture history, and menopausal status.

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to improve case finding of mid-life women with low bone mass on bone mineral density (BMD) assessment.

METHODS

Among healthy women aged 40-60 years having their first BMD test, osteoporosis risk factors were assessed by questionnaire and BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The combination of risk factors that best discriminated women with/without low bone mass (T-score ≤ -2.0) was determined from the logistic regression model area under the curve (AUC) and internally validated using bootstrapping. Using the model odds ratios, a clinical prediction rule was created and its discriminative properties assessed and compared with that of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST). Sensitivity analyses examined results for pre-/peri- and post-menopausal women, separately.

RESULTS

Of 1,664 women referred for baseline BMD testing, 433 with conditions known to be associated with bone loss were excluded. Of 1,231 eligible women, 944 (77%) participated and 87 (9.2%) had low bone mass (35 pre-/peri- and 52 post-menopausal). Four risk factors for low bone mass were identified and incorporated into a clinical prediction rule. Selecting women for BMD testing with weight of ≤70 kg or any two of age >51, years' post-menopause of ≥1, and history of fragility fracture after age 40 was associated with 93% sensitivity to identify women with low bone mass, compared with 47% sensitivity for an OST score of ≤1 (AUC 0.75 versus OST AUC 0.69, p = 0.04). Results restricted to post-menopausal women were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Among healthy mid-life women receiving a baseline BMD test, few had low bone mass, supporting the need for guidance about testing. A prediction rule with four risk factors had improved sensitivity over the OST. Further validation is warranted.

Impact of guideline implementation by a fracture nurse on subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures

INTRODUCTION

Systematic implementation of guidelines in patients presenting with a fracture increases identification of patients at high risk for subsequent fractures and contributes to a decreased fracture risk. Its effect on prevention of subsequent fractures and on mortality has not been documented. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the implementation of specific guidelines on the risk of subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture (NVF).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Before-after impact analysis in consecutive patients older than 50 years who were admitted to the hospital with a NVF during 2 periods: pre-intervention group (n = 1,920, enrolled in 1999-2001) and intervention group (n = 1,335, enrolled in 2004-2006). The intervention consisted of a dedicated fracture nurse who systematically offered fracture risk evaluation and treatment according to available guidelines. The 2-year absolute risk (AR) and hazard ratio's (HR, with 95% confidence interval (CI)) of subsequent NVFs and mortality were analysed between both groups after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location by multivariable Cox regression and by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

The AR of subsequent fracture was 9.9% before and 6.7% after intervention, indicating a decrease of 35% in the risk of subsequent fracture (HR 0.65; CI: 0.51-0.84, after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location) and 17.9% and 11.6%, respectively, for subsequent mortality, indicating a decrease of 33% in the risk of subsequent mortality (HR: 0.67; CI: 0.55-0.81, after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic implementation of guidelines for fracture prevention by a dedicated fracture nurse immediately after a NVF is associated with a significant reduction of the 2-year risk of subsequent NVF and mortality.

Is osteoporosis disease management cost effective?

Can osteoporosis disease management be cost effective? To answer that question, we conducted an extensive review of osteoporosis and fragility fracture prevention literature in peer-reviewed scientific journals and evidence-based guidelines from professional societies and government health organizations. We explored different strategies suggested by the literature to find how programs can be structured to be cost effective and to decrease fracture rates. We focused on ways to cost effectively identify, risk stratify, treat, and then track patients at risk for osteoporosis and fragility fractures. Studies have shown that osteoporosis management can decrease the hip fracture rate by 25% to 50% and be cost effective at the same time.

Strategies for treatment to prevent fragility fractures in postmenopausal women

The objective of treatment of osteoporosis is to decrease the risk of fractures in patients at high risk for a first or subsequent fracture. The efficacy of treatment will depend on the efficiency and level of implementation of clinical case finding to select patients at risk, the results of additional investigations, the efficacy, tolerance and safety of medical intervention and the adherence to treatment during follow-up. Each of these steps is critical in treatment in daily practice. Failure to consider one or another step can result in suboptimal fracture prevention or overtreatment. The aim of case finding is to identify patients for treatment, who have disease characteristics of patients in whom fracture prevention has been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These include patients with a low-trauma hip or vertebral fracture, with a low bone mineral density (BMD) or with a high risk of fracture based on the presence of clinical risk factors (CRFs) for osteoporosis and fractures such as included in the FRAX case-finding algorithm, with or without BMD. Case finding starts clinically, with systematic or opportunistic doctor- and/or patient-driven evaluation for the presence of CRFs, but its implementation is low. Further investigations aim to assess the risk of fracture(s) and to have baseline measurements for the subsequent monitoring of treatment, to exclude diseases that mimic osteoporosis, to identify the cause of osteoporosis and contributory factors and to select the most appropriate treatment. Medical intervention consists of providing information about osteoporosis to the patient, lifestyle advice, optimalisation of calcium intake and vitamin D status, fall prevention to reduce fall risk, correction of reversible contributors to secondary osteoporosis and a wide array of drugs for prevention of a first or subsequent vertebral, hip and non-vertebral, non-hip fracture. Drug treatment is based on manipulation of bone remodelling by inhibiting bone resorption (bisphosphonates, selective oestrogen-receptor modulator (SERMs), calcitonin), stimulating bone formation (parathyroid hormone) or mixed effects (strontium ranelate). Follow-up allows to check tolerance and safety, to optimise adherence and to decide about adequacy of response, duration and switching of therapy.

Interventions for improving the appropriate use of imaging in people with musculoskeletal conditions

BACKGROUND

Imaging is commonly performed for musculoskeletal conditions. Identifying interventions to improve the appropriate use of imaging for musculoskeletal conditions could potentially result in improved health outcomes for patients and reduced health care costs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of interventions that aim to improve the appropriate use of imaging for people with musculoskeletal conditions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (June 2007), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2007), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2007) and CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2007). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We undertook citation searches of all included studies, contacted authors of included studies, and contacted other experts in the field of effective professional practice.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled clinical trials and interrupted time-series analyses that evaluated interventions designed to improve the use of imaging for musculoskeletal symptoms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty eight studies met our inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were for the management of osteoporosis or low back pain, and most evaluated interventions aimed at health professionals. To improve the use of imaging in the management of osteoporosis, the effect of any type of intervention compared to no-intervention controls was modest (absolute improvement in bone mineral density test ordering +10%, IQR 0.0 to +27.7). Patient mediated, reminder, and organisational interventions appeared to have most potential for improving imaging use in osteoporosis. For low back pain studies, the most common intervention evaluated was distribution of educational materials and this showed varying effects. Other interventions in low back pain studies also showed variable effects. For other musculoskeletal conditions, distribution of educational materials, educational meetings and audit and feedback were not shown to be effective for changing imaging ordering behaviour. Across all conditions, increasing the number of intervention components did not increase effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For improving the use of imaging in osteoporosis, most professional interventions demonstrated benefit, and patient mediated, reminder, and organisational interventions appeared to have most potential for benefit. For low back pain studies interventions showed varying effects. For other musculoskeletal conditions, no firm conclusions can be drawn.

Will absolute fracture risk prediction facilitate treatment of osteoporosis?

Development of valid risk prediction tools for osteoporosis could substantially improve patient care. These tools have the potential to identify individuals at increased fracture risk and specifically direct interventions towards them rather than low-risk individuals. In this Practice Point commentary, I discuss a study by Hans et al. that adds to our current understanding of fracture risk prediction. This large, prospective study aimed to develop a 10-year hip fracture risk prediction tool that combined quantitative ultrasound of the heel bone with clinical risk factors. The authors found that combined use of these parameters was highly predictive of future fracture risk in a cohort of almost 13,000 elderly, white, European women. Significant clinical risk factors included BMI, previous fracture, history of recent fall, current smoking, failed chair test, and diabetes mellitus; age was also found to be a significant risk factor. Before embracing such tools, however, we must acknowledge some important unknowns about their utility.