Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-08-2021 | Review

The impact of fracture liaison services on subsequent fractures and mortality: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Authors: N. Li, M. Hiligsmann, A. Boonen, M. M. van Oostwaard, R. T. A. L. de Bot, C. E. Wyers, S. P. G. Bours, J. P. van den Bergh

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 8/2021

Abstract

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that fracture liaison service (FLS) is associated with a significantly lower probability of subsequent fractures and mortality although the latter was only found in studies comparing outcomes before and after the introduction of an FLS.

Introduction

To systematically review and evaluate the impact of fracture liaison services (FLSs) on subsequent fractures and mortality using meta-analysis.

Methods

A literature search was performed within PubMed and Embase to identify original articles published between January 1, 2010, and April 30, 2020, reporting the effect of FLSs on subsequent fractures and/or mortality. Only studies comparing FLS to no-FLS were included. A meta-analysis using random-effects models was conducted. The quality of studies was appraised after combining and modifying criteria of existing quality assessment tools.

Results

The search retrieved 955 published studies, of which 16 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies compared outcomes before (pre-FLS) and after (post-FLS) FLS implementation, two studies compared outcomes between hospitals with and without FLS, and two other studies performed both comparisons. In total, 18 comparisons of FLS and no-FLS care were reported. Follow-up time varied from 6 months to 4 years. Sixteen comparisons reported on subsequent fractures and 12 on mortality. The quality assessment revealed methodological issues in several criteria. Excluding studies with very high selection bias, the meta-analysis of nine comparisons (in eight papers) revealed that the FLS care was associated with a significantly lower probability of subsequent fractures (odds ratio: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52–0.93, P=0.01). In studies with a follow-up > 2 years, a significantly lower probability of subsequent fractures was captured for FLS care (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.34–0.94, P=0.03), while in studies ≤ 2 years, there was no difference in the odds of subsequent fractures. No significant difference in the odds of mortality was observed (odds ratio: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.49–1.09, P=0.12) in the meta-analysis of eight comparisons (in seven papers). However, a significantly lower probability of mortality was identified in the six pre-post FLS comparisons (odds ratio: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44–0.95, P=0.03), but not in studies comparing hospitals with and without FLS. No difference was observed in mortality stratified by follow-up time.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that FLS care is associated with a significantly lower probability of subsequent fractures and mortality although the latter was only found in studies comparing outcomes before and after the introduction of an FLS. The quality assessment revealed that some important methodological issues were unmet in the currently available studies. Recommendations to guide researchers to design high-quality studies for evaluation of FLS outcomes in the future were provided.

Available only for authorised users

Bachour F, Rizkallah M, Sebaaly A, Barakat A, Razzouk H, el Hage R, Nasr R, el Khoury M, Maalouf G (2017) Fracture liaison service: report on the first successful experience from the Middle East. Arch Osteoporos 12(1):4–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0372-xCrossRef

Van Geel TACM, Huntjens KMB, Van Den Bergh JPW, Dinant GJ, Geusens PP (2010) Timing of subsequent fractures after an initial fracture. Curr Osteoporos Rep 8(3):118–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-010-0023-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Van Geel TACM, Van Helden S, Geusens PP, Winkens B, Dinant GJ (2009) Clinical subsequent fractures cluster in time after first fractures. Ann Rheum Dis 68(1):99–102. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.092775CrossRefPubMed

Tran T, Bliuc D, Hansen L, Abrahamsen B, van den Bergh J, Eisman JA, van Geel T, Geusens P, Vestergaard P, Nguyen TV, Center JR (2018) Persistence of excess mortality following individual nonhip fractures: a relative survival analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 103(9):3205–3214. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-02656CrossRefPubMed

Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA (1999) Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. The Lancet 353(9156):878–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(98)09075-8

Tran T, Bliuc D, van Geel T, Adachi JD, Berger C, van den Bergh J, Eisman JA, Geusens P, Goltzman D, Hanley DA, Josse RG (2017) Population‐wide impact of non‐hip non‐vertebral fractures on mortality. J Bone Min Res 32(9):1802–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3118

Skjødt MK, Khalid S, Ernst M, Rubin KH, Martinez-Laguna D, Delmestri A, Javaid MK, Cooper C, Libanati C, Toth E, Abrahamsen B, Prieto-Alhambra D (2020) Secular trends in the initiation of therapy in secondary fracture prevention in Europe: a multi-national cohort study including data from Denmark, Catalonia, and the United Kingdom. Osteoporos Int 31(8):1535–1544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05358-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Solomon DH, Johnston SS, Boytsov NN, McMorrow D, Lane JM, Krohn KD (2014) Osteoporosis medication use after hip fracture in U.S. patients between 2002 and 2011. J Bone Miner Res 29(9):1929–1937. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2202CrossRefPubMed

Eisman J, Clapham S, Kehoe L (2004) Osteoporosis prevalence and levels of treatment in primary care: the Australian bonecare study. J Bone Miner Res 19(12):1969–1975. https://doi.org/10.1359/JBMR.040905CrossRefPubMed

10.

Geusens P, Bours SPG, Wyers CE, van den Bergh JP (2019) Fracture liaison programs. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 33(2):278–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2019.03.016CrossRefPubMed

11.

Inderjeeth CA, Glennon D, Petta A (2006) Study of osteoporosis awareness, investigation and treatment of patients discharged from a tertiary public teaching hospital. Intern Med J 36(9):547–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01146.xCrossRefPubMed

12.

Inderjeeth CA, Raymond WD, Briggs AM, Geelhoed E, Oldham D, Mountain D (2018) Implementation of the Western Australian Osteoporosis Model of Care: a fracture liaison service utilising emergency department information systems to identify patients with fragility fracture to improve current practice and reduce re-fracture rates: a 12. Osteoporos Int 29(8):1759–1770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4526-5CrossRefPubMed

13.

Soiza RL, Donaldson AIC, Myint PK (2018) Fracture liaison services: do they reduce fracture rates? Ther Adv Vaccines 9(6):259–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/httpsCrossRef

14.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

15.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 355:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919CrossRef

16.

Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos PTM. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

17.

National Institutes of Health. Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. Published 2014. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools

18.

Grant J, Hunter A (2006) Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J Intell Inf Syst 27(2):159–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-006-2974-4CrossRef

19.

Huntjens KMB, Van Geel TCM, Geusens PP et al (2011) Impact of guideline implementation by a fracture nurse on subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures. Injury. 42(SUPPL. 4):S39–S43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(11)70011-0CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ruggiero C, Zampi E, Rinonapoli G et al (2015) Fracture prevention service to bridge the osteoporosis care gap. Clin Interv Aging 10:1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S76695CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Amphansap T, Stitkitti N, Dumrongwanich P (2016) Evaluation of Police General Hospital’s fracture liaison service (PGH’s FLS): the first study of a fracture liaison service in Thailand. Osteoporos Sarcopenia 2(4):238–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afos.2016.09.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Axelsson KF, Jacobsson R, Lund D, Lorentzon M (2016) Effectiveness of a minimal resource fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int 27(11):3165–3175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3643-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Hawley S, Kassim Javaid M, Prieto-Alhambra D et al (2016) Clinical effectiveness of orthogeriatric and fracture liaison service models of care for hip fracture patients: population-based longitudinal study. Age Ageing 45(2):236–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv204CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Davidson E, Seal A, Doyle Z, Fielding K, McGirr J (2017) Prevention of osteoporotic refractures in regional Australia. Aust J Rural Health 25(6):362–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12355CrossRefPubMed

25.

Henderson CY, Shanahan E, Butler A, Lenehan B, O’Connor M, Lyons D, Ryan JP (2017) Dedicated orthogeriatric service reduces hip fracture mortality. Ir J Med Sci 186(1):179–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-016-1453-3CrossRefPubMed

26.

Singh S, Whitehurst DG, Funnell L et al (2019) Breaking the cycle of recurrent fracture: implementing the first fracture liaison service (FLS) in British Columbia, Canada. Arch Osteoporos 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-019-0662-6

27.

Wasfie T, Jackson A, Brock C, Galovska S, McCullough JR, Burgess JA (2019) Does a fracture liaison service program minimize recurrent fragility fractures in the elderly with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures? Am J Surg 217(3):557–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.09.027CrossRefPubMed

28.

González-Quevedo D, Bautista-Enrique D, Pérez-del-Río V, Bravo-Bardají M, García-de-Quevedo D, Tamimi I (2020) Fracture liaison service and mortality in elderly hip fracture patients: a prospective cohort study. Osteoporos Int 31(1):77–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05153-wCrossRefPubMed

29.

Shin YH, Hong WK, Kim J, Gong HS (2020) Osteoporosis care after distal radius fracture reduces subsequent hip or spine fractures: a 4-year longitudinal study. Osteoporos Int 31(8):1471–1476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05410-3CrossRefPubMed

30.

Huntjens KMB, Van Geel TACM, Van Den Bergh JPW et al (2014) Fracture liaison service: impact on subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidence and mortality. J Bone Jointt Surg Ser A 96(4):1–8. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00223CrossRef

31.

Nakayama A, Major G, Holliday E, Attia J, Bogduk N (2016) Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. Osteoporos Int 27(3):873–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3443-0CrossRefPubMed

32.

Axelsson KF, Johansson H, Lundh D, Möller M, Lorentzon M (2020) Association between recurrent fracture risk and implementation of fracture liaison services in four Swedish hospitals: a cohort study. J Bone Miner Res 35(7):1216–1223. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3990CrossRefPubMed

33.

Stark S, Landsbaum A, Palmer JL, Somerville EK, Morris JC (2010) Competing risk of death: an important consideration in studies of older adults. 58(4):235–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02767.x

34.

Fine JP, Gray RJ (1999) A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):496–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144CrossRef

35.

Wu CH, Te Tu S, Chang YF et al (2018) Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Bone. 111(138):92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.03.018CrossRefPubMed

36.

Briot K (2017) Fracture liaison services. Curr Opin Rheumatol 29(4):416–421. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000401CrossRefPubMed

Title: The impact of fracture liaison services on subsequent fractures and mortality: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Authors: N. Li
M. Hiligsmann
A. Boonen
M. M. van Oostwaard
R. T. A. L. de Bot
C. E. Wyers
S. P. G. Bours
J. P. van den Bergh
Publication date: 01-08-2021
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: Osteoporosis International / Issue 8/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-021-05911-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The impact of fracture liaison services on subsequent fractures and mortality: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2021

Evaluation of quality and readability of online patient information on osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment and recommendations for improvement

Fracture liaison services: past, present and future

Associations of hemoglobin and change in hemoglobin with risk of incident hip fracture in older men and women: the cardiovascular health study

High prevalence and undertreatment of osteoporosis in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Osteoporotic hip and vertebral fractures in the Arab region: a systematic review

The incidence of arm, forearm, and hip osteoporotic fractures during early stage of COVID-19 pandemic