Top

Osteoporosis International

Published in:

01-09-2006 | Original Article

A randomized study of two different information-based interventions on the management of osteoporosis in minimal and moderate trauma fractures

Authors: D. Bliuc, J. A. Eisman, J. R. Center

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 9/2006

Abstract

Introduction

Despite the high risk for subsequent fracture following an initial osteoporotic fracture, the majority of subjects with minimal trauma fractures receive no treatment for osteoporosis. The primary aim of this investigation was to determine whether an information-based intervention could change post-fracture management of osteoporosis. A secondary aim was to define participant- and doctor-related barriers to osteoporosis management.

Methods

Consecutive fracture patients (n=254) from the outpatient fracture clinic at St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney were interviewed over a 15-month period (February 2002–July 2003). Fracture risk factors, prior investigation and treatment for osteoporosis were collected at baseline. Participants were initially contacted after 3 months to ascertain follow-up management. All those not investigated or treated by their primary care physician were then randomized to either a personalized letter or the same letter plus an offer of a free bone mineral density (BMD) test. Participants were contacted after 9 months to record further investigations or treatment for osteoporosis.

Results

Less than 20% of the participants had a primary care physician follow-up 3 months after the fracture, leaving 159 who were randomized to a personalized letter (n=79) and a personalized letter plus the offer of a free BMD test (n=80). There was a significant increase in the number of people investigated for osteoporosis in the group receiving the letter plus BMD offer [38% (letter + BMD) vs. 7% (letter only); p=0.001). A high proportion of those tested had low BMD (49% osteopenia and 17% osteoporosis). However, the rates of treatment in both groups were very low (6%). Furthermore, even among the few individuals (23%) who contacted their primary care physician, only 25% were recommended treatment. The belief that the fracture was osteoporotic was an independent predictor of having a BMD test, a primary care physician follow-up and treatment. Other independent predictors were age over 50 years for a primary care physician follow-up, female sex for having a BMD test and having had a BMD test for treatment.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that an information-based intervention led to a modest increase in the proportion of people investigated for osteoporosis; however. there was no significant effect on treatment rates. The offer of a free BMD assessment was associated with a significantly higher rate of investigation than a personalized letter alone (odds ratio: 8.5; 95% confidence interval: 3.1–24.5), but this investigation did not affect treatment rate. The low uptake of either a BMD or a visit to a primary care physician together with low rates of treatment recommendation even among people who contacted their primary care physician reflects significant participant and doctor-related barriers to osteoporosis management.

Johnell O, Kanis JA (2004) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:897–902PubMedCrossRef

Sanders KM, Nicholson GC, Ugoni AM, Pasco JA, Seeman E, Kotowicz MA (1999) Health burden of hip and other fractures in Australia beyond 2000. Projections based on the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Med J Aust 170:467–470PubMed

ACT A E P L C (2001) The burden of brittle bones: costing osteoporosis in Australia. ACT AEPLC, Australia

Melton LJ 3rd (2003) Adverse outcomes of osteoporotic fractures in the general population. J Bone Miner Res 18:1139–1141PubMedCrossRef

Randell A, Sambrook PN, Nguyen TV, Lapsley H, Jones G, Kelly PJ et al (1995) Direct clinical and welfare costs of osteoporotic fractures in elderly men and women. Osteoporos Int 5:427–432PubMedCrossRef

Majumdar SR, Rowe BH, Folk D, Johnson JA, Holroyd BH, Morrish DW et al (2004) A controlled trial to increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis in older patients with a wrist fracture. Ann Intern Med 141:366–373PubMed

Brown JP, Josse RG (2002) Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 167:S1–S34

Jones G, Nguyen T, Sambrook PN, Kelly PJ, Gilbert C, Eisman JA (1994) Symptomatic fracture incidence in elderly men and women: the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study (DOES). Osteoporos Int 4:277–282PubMedCrossRef

Sanders KM, Seeman E, Ugoni AM, Pasco JA, Martin TJ, Skoric B et al (1999) Age- and gender-specific rate of fractures in Australia: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int 10:240–247PubMedCrossRef

10.

Briancon D, de Gaudemar JB, Forestier R (2004) Management of osteoporosis in women with peripheral osteoporotic fractures after 50 years of age: a study of practices. J Bone Spine 71:128–130CrossRef

11.

Simonelli C, Chen YT, Morancey J, Lewis AF, Abbott TA (2003) Evaluation and management of osteoporosis following hospitalization for low-impact fracture. J Gen Intern Med 18:17–22PubMedCrossRef

12.

Hajcsar EE, Hawker G, Bogoch ER (2000) Investigation and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with fragility fractures. Can Med Assoc J 163:819–822

13.

Sanders KM, Pasco JA, Ugoni AM, Nicholson GC, Seeman E, Martin TJ et al (1998) The exclusion of high trauma fractures may underestimate the prevalence of bone fragility fractures in the community: the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 13:1337–1342PubMedCrossRef

14.

Karlsson MK, Hasserius R, Obrant KJ (1993) Individuals who sustain nonosteoporotic fractures continue to also sustain fragility fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 53:229–231PubMedCrossRef

15.

Doherty DA, Sanders KM, Kotowicz MA, Prince RL (2001) Lifetime and five-year age-specific risks of first and subsequent osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 12:16–23PubMedCrossRef

16.

Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA 3rd, Berger M (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15:721–739PubMedCrossRef

17.

Mallmin H, Ljunghall S, Persson I, Naessen T, Krusemo UB, Bergstrom R (1993) Fracture of the distal forearm as a forecaster of subsequent hip fracture: a population-based cohort study with 24 years of follow-up. Calcif Tissue Int 52:269–272PubMedCrossRef

18.

Robinson CM, Royds M, Abraham A, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM, Christie J (2002) Refractures in patients at least forty-five years old. a prospective analysis of twenty-two thousand and sixty patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84-A:1528–1533

19.

van Staa TP, Leufkens HG, Cooper C (2002) Does a fracture at one site predict later fractures at other sites? A British cohort study. Osteoporos Int 13:624–629PubMedCrossRef

20.

Diamond T, Sambrook P, Williamson M, Flicker L, Nowson C, Fiatarone-Singh M et al (2001) Guidelines for treatment of osteoporosis in men. Aust Fam Physician 30:787–791PubMed

21.

Kanis JA, Black D, Cooper C, Dargent P, Dawson-Hughes B, De Laet C et al (2002) A new approach to the development of assessment guidelines for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 13:527–536PubMedCrossRef

22.

Bellantonio S, Fortinsky R, Prestwood K (2001) How well are community-living women treated for osteoporosis after hip fracture? J Am Geriatr Soc 49:1197–1204PubMedCrossRef

23.

Follin SL, Black JN, McDermott MT (2003) Lack of diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in men and women after hip fracture. Pharmacotherapy 23:190–198PubMedCrossRef

24.

Hooven F, Gehlbach SH, Pekow P, Bertone E, Benjamin E (2004) Follow-up treatment for osteoporosis after fracture. Osteoporos Int 16:296–301PubMedCrossRef

25.

Panneman MJ, Lips P, Sen SS, Herings RM (2004) Undertreatment with anti-osteoporotic drugs after hospitalization for fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:120–124PubMedCrossRef

26.

Papaioannou A, Giangregorio L, Kvern B, Boulos P, Ioannidis G, Adachi JD (2004) The osteoporosis care gap in Canada. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 5:11PubMedCrossRef

27.

Port L, Center J, Briffa NK, Nguyen T, Cumming R, Eisman J (2003) Osteoporotic fracture: missed opportunity for intervention. Osteoporos Int 14:780–784PubMedCrossRef

28.

Sahota O, Worley A, Hosking DJ (2000) An audit of current clinical practice in the management of osteoporosis in Nottingham. J Public Health Med 22:466–472PubMedCrossRef

29.

Smith MD, Ross W, Ahern MJ (2001) Missing a therapeutic window of opportunity: an audit of patients attending a tertiary teaching hospital with potentially osteoporotic hip and wrist fractures. J Rheumatol 28:2504–2508PubMed

30.

Wong PK, Spencer DG, McElduff P, Manolios N, Larcos G, Howe GB (2003) Secondary screening for osteoporosis in patients admitted with minimal-trauma fracture to a major teaching hospital. Intern Med J 33:505–510PubMedCrossRef

31.

Gardner MJ, Flik KR, Mooar P, Lane JM (2002) Improvement in the undertreatment of osteoporosis following hip fracture. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84-A:1342–1348

32.

Feldstein AC, Nichols GA, Elmer PJ, Smith DH, Aickin M, Herson M (2003) Older women with fractures: patients falling through the cracks of guideline-recommended osteoporosis screening and treatment. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A:2294–2302

33.

Simonelli C, Killeen K, Mehle S, Swanson L (2002) Barriers to osteoporosis identification and treatment among primary care physicians and orthopedic surgeons. Mayo Clin Proc 77:334–338PubMedCrossRef

34.

Taylor JC, Sterkel B, Utley M, Shipley M, Newman S, Horton M et al (2001) Opinions and experiences in general practice on osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis and management. Osteoporos Int 12:844–848PubMedCrossRef

35.

Cuddihy MT (2003) Barriers to postfracture osteoporosis care in postmenopausal women. J Gen Intern Med 18:70–71PubMedCrossRef

36.

Mauck KF, Cuddihy MT, Trousdale RT, Pond GR, Pankratz VS, Melton LJ 3rd (2002) The decision to accept treatment for osteoporosis following hip fracture: exploring the woman’s perspective using a stage-of-change model. Osteoporos Int 13:560–564PubMedCrossRef

37.

Altman DG (1999) Practical statistics for medical research, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London

38.

Hawker G, Ridout R, Ricupero M, Jaglal S, Bogoch E (2003) The impact of a simple fracture clinic intervention in improving the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 14:171–178PubMedCrossRef

Title: A randomized study of two different information-based interventions on the management of osteoporosis in minimal and moderate trauma fractures
Authors: D. Bliuc
J. A. Eisman
J. R. Center
Publication date: 01-09-2006
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Osteoporosis International / Issue 9/2006
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0078-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A randomized study of two different information-based interventions on the management of osteoporosis in minimal and moderate trauma fractures

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2006

The effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on bone turnover

Impaired muscle strength is associated with fractures in hemodialysis patients

Development of an integrated-care delivery model for post-fracture care in Ontario, Canada

Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans

Device-specific thresholds to diagnose osteoporosis at the proximal femur: an approach to interpreting peripheral bone measurements in clinical practice

Endogenous sex steroids, weight change and rates of hip bone loss in older men: the MrOS study