Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patients 80 + have similar medication initiation rates to those aged 50–79 in Ontario FLS

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

Among individuals presenting to an Ontario FLS, we compared bone active medication initiation rates of patients 80 years and older with those 50–79 years old. After accounting for fracture risk status, there was no statistically significant difference in medication initiation rates between the two age groups

Introduction

A Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) offers post-fracture services to individuals over the age of 50 years and could potentially address age inequities in pharmacotherapy often observed for older adults. Among individuals presenting to an Ontario FLS and classified as being at high risk for future fracture, our objective was to compare bone active medication initiation rates of patients 80 years and older with those 50–79 years old.

Methods

In 39 FLS fracture clinics across Ontario, Canada, fracture prevention coordinators identified, assessed, and facilitated the referral of eligible patients for bone densitometry, fracture risk assessment, and implementation of pharmacotherapy in patients classified as high risk for future fracture. Variables assessed at baseline included age, sex, marital status, living location, fracture location, history of previous fracture, parent’s history of hip fracture, history of falls, and fracture risk status. At 6 months, bone active medication initiation was assessed in patients classified as high risk for future fracture. The Chi-square test of independence was used to compare medication initiation rates between patients 80 + and those 50–79 years old.

Results

Our sample size consisted of 808 patients aged 50–79 years and 346 aged 80 + years. After accounting for fracture risk status, there was no statistically significant difference in medication initiation rates of patients 50–79 and 80 + years old (76.9% versus 73.7%, p = 0.251).

Conclusion

A systematic approach to identifying patients at high risk for future fracture and tailoring treatment recommendations to these patients appeared to eliminate differences in treatment initiation rates based on older age.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Andersen S, Laurberg P (2014) Age discrimination in osteoporosis screening - data from the Aalborg University Hospital record for osteoporosis risk assessment. Maturitas 77:330–335

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Balasubramanian A, Tosi LL, Lane JM, Dirschl DR, Ho P-R, O'Malley CD (2014) Declining rates of osteoporosis management following fragility fractures in the U.S., 2000 through 2009. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 96:e52 (1–8)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bawa HS, Weick J, Dirschl DR (2015) Anti-osteoporotic therapy after fragility fracture lowers rate of subsequent fracture. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 97:1555–1562

    Google Scholar 

  4. Axelsson KF, Jacobsson R, Lund D, Lorentzon M (2016) Effectiveness of a minimal resource fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int 27:3165–3175

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hiligsmann M, Bruyere O, Reginster J-Y (2010) Cost-utility of long-term strontium ranelate treatment for postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 21:157–165

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hiligsmann M, Reginster J-Y (2010) Potential cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Bone 47:34–40

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Klop C, Welsing PMJ, Elders PJM, Overbeek JA, Souverein PC, Burden AM, van Onzenoort HAW, Leufkens HGM, Bijlsma JWJ, de Vries F (2015) Long-term persistence with anti-osteoporosis drugs after fracture. Osteoporos Int 26:1831–1840

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitchell PJ, Cooper C, Fujita M, Halbout P, Åkesson K, Costa M, Dreinhöfer KE, Marsh DR, Lee JK, Chan DC, Javaid MK (2019) Quality improvement initiatives in fragility fracture care and prevention. Current Osteoporosis Reports 17:510–520

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Papaioannou A, Leslie WD, Morin S et al (2010) 2010 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 182(17):1864–1873

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sale JEM, Beaton D, Posen J, Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch E (2011) Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporososis International 22(7):2067–2082

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, Speerin R, Bleasel J, Center JR, Eisman JA, March L, Seibel MJ (2013) Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 24:393–406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Blonk MC, Erdtsieck RJ, Wernekinck MG, Schoon EJ (2007) The fracture and osteoporosis clinic: 1-year results and 3-month compliance. Bone. 40(6):1643–1649

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Banefelt J, Akesson KE, Spangeus A et al (2019) Risk of imminent fracture following a previous fracture in a Swedish database study. Osteoporos Int 30:601–609

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Yusuf AA, Hu Y, Chandler D, Crittenden DB, Barron RL (2020) Predictors of imminent risk of fracture in Medicare-enrolled men and women. Arch Osteoporos 15:120

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Dirschl DR, Rustom BS (2018) Practice patterns and performance in U.S. Fracture Liaison Programs. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 100:680–685

    Google Scholar 

  16. Singer BR, McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, Christie J (1998) Epidemiology of fractures in 15,000 adults. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br) 80B(2):243–248

    Google Scholar 

  17. Metge CJ, Leslie WD, Manness L-J, Yogendran M, Yuen CK, Kvern B, Maximizing Osteoporosis Management in Manitoba Steering Committee (2008) Postfracture care for older women: gaps between optimal care and actual care. Can Fam Physician 54:1270–1276

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame H et al (2005) Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J 56(3):178–188

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA (2010) Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res 25(11):2350–2358. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.123 [published Online First: Epub Date]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Agresti A (2003) Categorical data analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rice JA (2006) Mathematical statistics and data analysis. Belmont, Thompson Higher Education

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rana R, Singhal R (2015) Chi-square test and its application in hypothesis testing. Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences 1(1):69

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Wanner C, Zoccali C (2007) Measures of effect: relative risks, odds ratios, risk difference, and 'number needed to treat'. Kidney Int 72(7):789–791

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 310(6973):170

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim HY (2017) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics 42(2):152–155

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pickering RM (2017) Describing the participants in a study. Age Ageing 46:576–581

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tang J, Galbraith N (2016) Truong J. Living alone in Canada:1–21

  28. Chang VC, Minh TD (2015) Risk factors for falls among seniors: implications of gender. Am J Epidemiol 181(7):521–531

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brandberg C, Blomqvist H, Jirwe M (2013) What is the importance of age on treatment of the elderly in the intensive care unit? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 57:698–703

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bond M, Bowling A, McKee D, Kennelly M, Banning AP, Dudley N, Elder A, Martin A (2003) Does ageism affect the management of ischaemic heart disease? J Health Serv Res Policy 8(1):40–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Giugliano RP, Camargo CA, Lloyd-Jones DM, Zagrodsky JD, Alexis JD, Eagle KA, Fuster V, O'Donnell CJ (1998) Elderly patients receive less aggressive medical and invasive management of unstable angina. Arch Intern Med 158:1113–1120

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Held C, Johanson P, Edberg A et al (2013) Undertreatment of elderly patients >80-years with acute coronary syndrome despite high risk and similar benefits from evidence-based treatment as at younger age: Results from SWEDEHEART. J Am Coll Cardiol 61(10)

  33. Avezum A, Makdisse M, Spencer F (2005) Impact of age on management and outcome of acute coronary syndrome: observations from the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE). Am Heart J 149:67–73

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Peake MD (2003) Ageism in the management of lung cancer. Age Ageing 32(2):171–177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fourcadier E, Tretarre B, Gras-Aygon C, Ecarnot F, Daures J-P, Bessaoud R (2015) Under-treatment of elderly patients with ovarian cancer: a population based study. BMC Cancer 15:937

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Audisio RA, Balch CM (2016) Why can't surgeons treat older patients the same as younger patients? Ann Surg Oncol 23(13):4123–4125

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Parameswaran K, Hildreth A, Chadha D, Keaney N, Taylor I, Bansal S (1998) Asthma in the elderly: Underperceived, underdiagnosed and undertreated; a community survey. Respir Med 92(3):573–577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Swaminathan D, Swaminathan V (2015) Geriatric oncology: problems with undertreatment within this population. Cancer Biology & Medicine 12(4):275–283

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wyman MF, Shiovitz-Ezra S, Bengel J (2018) Ageism in the health care system: providers, patients, and systems. International Perspectives on Aging Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism:193–212

  40. Higashi RT, Tillack AA, Steinman M, Harper M, Johnston CB (2012) Elder care as "frustrating" and "boring": understanding the persistence of negative attitudes toward older patients among physicians-in-training. J Aging Stud 26(4):476–483

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cherubini A, Oristrell J, Pla X, Ruggiero C, Ferretti R, Diestre G, Clarfield AM, Crome P, Hertogh C, Lesauskaite V, Prada GI, Szczerbinska K, Topinkova E, Sinclair-Cohen J, Edbrooke D, Mills GH (2011) The persistent exclusion of older patients from ongoing clinical trials regarding heart failure. Arch Intern Med 171(6):550–556

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Spall HGC, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA (2007) Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 297(11):1233–1240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S et al (2005) The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 9(38):1–171

    Google Scholar 

  44. Bohnert N, Chagnon J, Dion P (2015) Population projections for Canada (2013 to 2063), provinces and territories (2013 to 2038). Statistics Canada, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sale JE, Beaton D, Posen J, Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch E (2014) Key outcomes are usually not reported in published fracture secondary prevention programs: results of a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(2):283–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1442-y [published Online First: Epub Date]|

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Axelsson KF, Johansson H, Lundh D, Moller 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ansari H, Beaton D, Sujic R et al (2017) Equal treatment: no evidence of gender inequity in osteoporosis management in a coordinator-based fragility fracture screening program after fracture risk adjustment. Osteoporos Int 28(12):3401–3406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) through the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy. The views expressed are those of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect those of the MOHLTC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada

    J. E. M. Sale, A. Yang, V. Elliot-Gibson, R. Sujic, D. Linton & L. Frankel

  2. Institute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada

    J. E. M. Sale

  3. Osteoporosis Canada, Suite 201 - 250 Ferrand Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M3C 3G8, Canada

    R. Jain & J. Weldon

  4. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada

    E. Bogoch

Authors
  1. J. E. M. Sale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Elliot-Gibson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Sujic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. Linton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Weldon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L. Frankel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. E. Bogoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. E. M. Sale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors JEMS, AY, VE-G, RJ, RS, DL, JW, LF, and EB declare that they have no conflict of interest. EB has an unrestricted research grant from Amgen Canada and serves on an advisory board for Amgen Canada.

Ethical approval

The use of de-identified data for research purposes was approved by the research ethics board (REB#08-304) at St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sale, J.E.M., Yang, A., Elliot-Gibson, V. et al. Patients 80 + have similar medication initiation rates to those aged 50–79 in Ontario FLS. Osteoporos Int 32, 1405–1411 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05796-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05796-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation