Using a sequential explanatory mixed method to evaluate the therapeutic window of opportunity for initiating osteoporosis treatment following fragility fractures
- 42 Downloads
Interventions targeting patients with recent fragility fracture and their physician were most successful at initiating osteoporosis treatment during the first 12 months. This window of opportunity had already closed after 1 year. The reasons for declining or accepting the intensive intervention were explored in patients still untreated at 12 months.
A fragility fracture (FF) event identifies patients most likely to benefit from osteoporosis treatment. Nonetheless, most FF patients go untreated. Our objective was to determine how long an incident FF remains a strong incentive to initiate osteoporosis treatment.
A total of 1086 men and women over age 50 with a recent FF event were assigned to either standard care (SC), to minimal (MIN), or intensive (INT) interventions targeting patients and their family physician to initiate osteoporosis treatment. Inpatients with FF (mainly hip) evaluated by rheumatologists were also included in a specialized group (SPE; n = 324). At 1 year, untreated patients in both the SC and the MIN groups were offered an INT intervention. The cohort was followed through 48 months. A qualitative analysis of patient-centered decision-making associated with initiation of treatment was conducted.
In MIN and INT groups, osteoporosis treatment was initiated in 41.0 and 54.3% of untreated patients by 12 months, respectively, compared to 68.4% in SPE and 18.9% in SC groups; initiation rates drastically dropped thereafter. Over 4863 patient-years of follow-up, the rates of new FF were 3.4 per 100 patient-years, without significant differences between patients with initial major or minor FF, nor between control or intervention groups. Failure by patients and physicians to recognize FF as a sign of underlying bone disease contributed the most to lack of treatment.
While incident FFs are an ideal opportunity for starting osteoporosis treatment, 1 year later, the therapeutic window of opportunity has already closed.
KeywordsAdherence Fragility fracture Osteoporosis Window of opportunity
We are especially indebted to our study coordinator Noémie Poirier for her continuing involvement and dedication.
Compliance with ethical standards
The Ethics Review Board of the CHUS approved the study (Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT00512499).
Conflict of interest
No disclosure except GB who has received lecture fees or advisory board fees from BMS Canada, Celgene Canada, Novartis Canada, and UCB Canada; GB and SR from Eli Lilly Canada, Amgen Canada, and Pfizer Canada; IG has received research funding from Merck Canada, and SR from BMS and Pfizer Canada.
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the CHUS institutional research committee and with TCPS 2 (2014)- the latest edition of Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.
- 5.Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ, McLellan AR, Stenmark J, Pierroz DD, Kyer C, Cooper C (2013) Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 24(8):2135–2152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2348-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Gehlbach S, Saag KG, Adachi JD, Hooven FH, Flahive J, Boonen S, Chapurlat RD, Compston JE, Cooper C, Díez-Perez A, Greenspan SL, LaCroix AZ, Netelenbos JC, Pfeilschifter J, Rossini M, Roux C, Sambrook PN, Silverman S, Siris ES, Watts NB, Lindsay R (2012) Previous fractures at multiple sites increase the risk for subsequent fractures: the global longitudinal study of osteoporosis in women. J Bone Miner Res 27(3):645–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1476 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Roux S, Cabana F, Carrier N, Beaulieu M, April PM, Beaulieu MC, Boire G (2014) The World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) underestimates incident and recurrent fractures in consecutive patients with fragility fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99(7):2400–2408. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2013-4507 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, Atkinson S, Brown JP, Feldman S, Hanley DA, Hodsman A, Jamal SA, Kaiser SM, Kvern B, Siminoski K, Leslie WD, for the Scientific Advisory Council of Osteoporosis Canada (2010) 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 182(17):1864–1873. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.100771 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Agresti A, Coull B (1998) Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 52:119–126Google Scholar
- 29.Miles MB, Huberman AM (2003) Analyse des données qualitatives, 2e éd. edn. De Boeck Université, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 33.Sale JE, Gignac MA, Hawker G, Frankel L, Beaton D, Bogoch E, Elliot-Gibson V (2011) Decision to take osteoporosis medication in patients who have had a fracture and are 'high' risk for future fracture: a qualitative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-92 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 39.Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A, Cooper C, Davies C, Francis R, Kanis JA, Marsh D, McCloskey EV, Reid DM, Selby P, National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (2013) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update 2013. Maturitas 75(4):392–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.05.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar