Advertisement

Archives of Osteoporosis

, 13:110 | Cite as

Improvement in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporosis by a Fracture Liaison Service: feedback from a single French center care pathway

  • Arthur Vrignaud
  • Simon Pelletier
  • Emmanuelle Dernis
  • Yvon Moui
  • Bénédicte Haettich
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Osteoporosis is responsible for fragility fractures, thus causing significant morbidity and mortality. This study shows that care pathways, such as Le Mans General Hospital Fracture Liaison Service, are useful and efficient in improving the prevention of osteoporosis and of its consequences.

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a major public health concern, causing significant morbidity and mortality. Care pathways, called Fracture Liaison Services, have demonstrated their utility in preventing osteoporosis-associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze the activity of one such care pathway.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study, in which 272 patients who had fragility fractures between January 2012 and December 2016 were included. Screening of the medical records and data analyses were performed to characterize the population and the medical care received related to osteoporosis, and to compare these data with those of another study carried out from January 2010 to January 2011 on 54 patients in the same Fracture Liaison Service.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts concerning their demographic characteristics, with 92.3% women and a mean age of 68.7 in our cohort. Secondary prevention was improved, as shown by a reduction in the number of vertebral fractures detected by systematic assessment and fewer low-energy fractures. This study also demonstrated a decline in the percentage of patients with a first-degree parental history of hip fracture and a trend towards a decline in the rate of those having vitamin D insufficiency.

Conclusions

Communication with patients and healthcare professionals through the Fracture Liaison Service was beneficial for patients in terms of fracture prevention. This study supports the development of similar care pathways in other healthcare institutions.

Keywords

Osteoporosis Primary prevention Secondary prevention Fracture Liaison Service Care pathway 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Blanchais for her contribution by agreeing to send us the data of the study she carried out.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary material

11657_2018_523_Fig2_ESM.png (1.7 mb)
ESM 1

(PNG 1779 kb)

11657_2018_523_MOESM1_ESM.tif (162 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 162 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Melton LJ (2003) Adverse outcomes of osteoporotic fractures in the general population. J Bone Miner Res 18(6):1139–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jönsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Svedbom A, Hernlund E, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: a compendium of country-specific reports. Arch Osteoporos 8(137):137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Solomon DH, Patrick AR, Schousboe J, Losina E (2014) The potential economic benefits of improved post-fracture care: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a fracture liaison service in the US healthcare system. J Bone Miner Res 29(7):1667–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keene GS, Parker MJ, Pryor GA (1993) Mortality and morbidity after hip fractures. BMJ 307(6914):1248–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. Lancet 353(9156):878–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindsay R, Burge RT, Strauss DM (2005) One year outcomes and costs following a vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 16(1):78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silverman SL (2005) Quality-of-life issues in osteoporosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 7(1):39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17(12):1726–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caliri A, De Filippis L, Bagnato GL, Bagnato GF (2007) Osteoporotic fractures: mortality and quality of life. Panminerva Med 49(1):21–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Curran D, Maravic M, Kiefer P, Tochon V, Fardellone P (2010) Epidemiology of osteoporosis-related fractures in France: a literature review. Joint Bone Spine 77(6):546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rapport au ministre chargé de la sécurité sociale et au Parlement sur l’évolution des charges et des produits de l’Assurance Maladie au titre de 2016 (loi du 13 août 2004). II.5 Prévenir les réhospitalisations par une meilleure prise en charge après une fracture pour fragilité osseuse : 54–61Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bouxsein ML, Kaufman J, Tosi L, Cummings S, Lane J, Johnell O (2004) Recommendations for optimal care of the fragility fracture patient to reduce the risk of future fracture. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12(6):385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freedman KB, Kaplan FS, Bilker WB, Strom BL, Lowe RA (2000) Treatment of osteoporosis: are physicians missing an opportunity? J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A(8):1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siris ES, Bilezikian JP, Rubin MR, Black DM, Bockman RS, Bone HG, Hochberg MC, McClung MR, Schnitzer TJ (2003) Pins and plaster aren’t enough: a call for the evaluation and treatment of patients with osteoporotic fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88(8):3482–3486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lespessailles E, Cotté F-E, Roux C, Fardellone P, Mercier F, Gaudin AF (2009) Prevalence and features of osteoporosis in the French general population: the Instant study. Joint Bone Spine 76(4):394–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sorbi R, Aghamirsalim MR (2012) Knowledge of orthopaedic surgeons in managing patients with fragility fracture. Int Orthop 36(6):1275–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA, 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(4):721–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359(9319):1761–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Staa TP, Leufkens HGM, Cooper C (2002) Does a fracture at one site predict later fractures at other sites? A British cohort study. Osteoporos Int 13(8):624–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yong JHE, Masucci L, Hoch JS, Sujic R, Beaton D (2016) Cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service--a real-world evaluation after 6 years of service provision. Osteoporos Int 27(1):231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McLellan AR, Gallacher SJ, Fraser M, McQuillian C (2003) The fracture liaison service: success of a program for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 14(12):1028–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Judge A, Javaid MK, Leal J, Hawley S, Drew S, Sheard S et al (2016) Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost, clinical outcomes and costeffectiveness study within a region of England. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals LibraryGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leal J, Gray AM, Hawley S, Prieto-Alhambra D, Delmestri A, Arden NK, Cooper C, Javaid MK, Judge A, and the REFReSH Study Group (2017) Cost-effectiveness of orthogeriatric and fracture liaison service models of care for hip fracture patients: a population-based study. J Bone Miner Res 32(2):203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Majumdar SR, Lier DA, Hanley DA, Juby AG, Beaupre LA, STOP-PRIHS Team (2017) Economic evaluation of a population-based osteoporosis intervention for outpatients with non-traumatic non-hip fractures: the “Catch a Break” 1i [type C] FLS. Osteoporos Int 28(6):1965–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walters S, Khan T, Ong T, Sahota O (2017) Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis. Clin Interv Aging 12:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Conway GS (2000) Premature ovarian failure. Br Med Bull 56(3):643–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goswami D, Conway GS (2007) Premature ovarian failure. Horm Res 68(4):196–202PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur Vrignaud
    • 1
  • Simon Pelletier
    • 2
  • Emmanuelle Dernis
    • 1
  • Yvon Moui
    • 2
  • Bénédicte Haettich
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de RhumatologieCentre Hospitalier du MansLe MansFrance
  2. 2.Service de Chirurgie OrthopédiqueCentre Hospitalier du MansLe MansFrance

Personalised recommendations