Are we closing the gaps in the management of osteoporosis following fragility fractures of the femur?

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to identify deficiencies in initiating anti-osteoporotic treatment following a fragility femoral fracture.

Methods

All patients ≥55 years of age treated for a fragility femoral fracture between June 2012 and May 2017 were enrolled. Medications at discharge and at 90 days and 1 year of follow up were analyzed. Patients were classified into 4 groups: Group I did not receive any treatment for osteoporosis; Group II received only calcium and vitamin D₃; Group III received an anabolic agent, calcium, and vitamin D₃; and Group IV received bisphosphonates, calcium, and vitamin D₃.

Results

A total of 167 patients with an average age of 65.81±12.55 years were included. There were 88 (52.7%) males and 79 (47.3%) females. At discharge, 107 patients (64.1%) were not prescribed optimal treatment for osteoporosis, and this reduced to 55 (32.9%) at the 90-day follow up. At 1 year, the number of patients receiving suboptimal treatment was further reduced to 25.74%.

Conclusions

Although the number of patients with fragility fractures receiving insufficient treatment was lower in the present study than in previous reports, increased efforts and coordinated treatment plans initiated by a fracture liaison service should be of high priority.

Keywords

Osteoporosis fragility fracture femur Saudi Arabia secondary prevention treatment gap

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a major issue in the developing world, and is associated with a financial as well as a social burden. The incidence of osteoporosis in Saudi Arabia has been reported as 39% in men and 33% in post-menopausal women.¹ Furthermore, rates of morbidity and mortality are increased following fragility fractures.² Although awareness of osteoporosis and its complications has been widely promoted by health care authorities, treatment strategies remain suboptimal.

In 2014, a gap in treatment was reported to exist for approximately 30% of patients, a figure markedly lower than previously reported.³ Jennings et al. (2010)⁴ found that only 2% of patients were prescribed appropriate therapy of calcium, vitamin D, and an anti-resorptive or anabolic medication. Hajcsar et al. (2000)⁵ reported that among patients attending fracture clinics after a fragility fracture, only 20% received the appropriate treatment. Black, Follin, and McDermott (2001)⁶ reported that, compared with the general population, patients had an 8-fold increased risk for fracture of the contralateral hip after the first fragility fracture of the femur. Furthermore, the risk of a second hip fracture within 1 year was increased by 6%–12%.^6–8 Finally, Chapuy and Meunier (1996)⁹ reported that the incidence of a second fracture was reduced by 30% with timely initiation of appropriate treatment.

Our earlier analysis for 2000–2011³ demonstrated a reduction in the treatment gap from 76% to 30%, and the objective of the present study was to evaluate whether this gap in the management of osteoporosis after fragility fracture of the femur has since been further reduced.

Methods

King Fahd Hospital of the University, Al-Khobar is a 550-bed tertiary care center attached to the College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. The center is a training institute, and at any given time there are 20–25 training residents within the department of orthopedic surgery. The department has 4 units: pediatric, spine, upper limb and shoulder, sports injuries, and arthroplasty. We retrospectively identified and reviewed patients’ medical records and the QuadraMed Patient Identity Solutions Program to assess the medications entered during the hospital stay and after discharge. All patients aged ≥55 years who were admitted between June 2012 and May 2017 with a fragility femoral fracture were included in the study. Patients with secondary osteoporosis were excluded from the analysis. Following discharge, patients were followed up in the orthopedic clinic, and details of prescribed medications were collected at discharge, at 90 days follow up, and at 1 year follow up Group I was defined as patients who did not receive any treatment; Group II as those who received only calcium and vitamin D₃; Group III as those who received teraperatide, calcium, and vitamin D₃; and Group IV as those who received bisphosphonates, calcium, and vitamin D₃.

Ethical Approval was taken from the IRB of the Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Results

A total of 167 patients with an average age of 65.81±12.55 years were treated during the study period. There were 88 (52.7%) male patients and 79 (47.3%) females. In 72 (43.1%) patients the right femur was fractured and in 95 (56.9%) the left (Table 1). Thirty-six patients (21.6%) were categorized in Group I, 71 (42.5%) in Group II, 44 (26.34%) in Group III, and 16 (9.6%) in Group IV at discharge. At 90 days follow up in the outpatient clinic, the distribution was 8.98% in Group I, 22.1% in Group II, 41.31% in Group III, and 25.8% in Group IV. At discharge, 107 patients (64.1%) did not receive the appropriate treatment for osteoporosis, and this reduced to 55 (32.9%) at the 90-day follow up. At 1 year, this was further reduced to 25.74% (Table 2). At 1 year, more males than females were not receiving the appropriate treatment (29.5% versus 21.5%, p < 0.01) (Table 3). After discharge, 11 (6.58%) patients were readmitted with a second fracture. At 90 days, male patients were more likely to not receive the appropriate treatment compared with the females (p < 0.001), and the trend continued at 1 year, with 17% of males and 3.79% of females not receiving anti-osteoporotic treatment (p < 0.001). Over 62% of the patients received tereperatide rather than an anti-resorptive, and 9(5.38%) patients had complications involving non-union of the fracture that required revision surgery (1 in Group III and 8 in Group IV).

Table 1.

Demographic data of patients with fragility femoral fractures.

Total number of patients	167
Males	88 (52.7%)
Females	79 (47.3%)
Right femur fracture	72 (43.1%)
Left femur fracture	95 (56.9%)
First fracture	155 (93.5%)
Second fracture	11 (6.5%)

Table 2.

Prescribed treatment at discharge, 90 days, and 1 year.

Group	Discharge	90 days	1 year
I	36	18	18
II	71	37	25
III	44	69	71
IV	16	43	53

Group I = no treatment; Group II = calcium + vitamin D₃; Group III = teraperatide + calcium + vitamin D₃; Group IV = bisphosphonate + calcium + vitamin D₃.

Table 3.

Comparison between male and female patients.

	Discharge		90 Days		1 year
Group	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
I	29	7	15	3	15	3
II	38	33	22	15	11	14
III	10	34	27	42	25	46
IV	11	5	24	19	37	16

Group I = no treatment; Group II = calcium + vitamin D₃; Group III = teraperatide + calcium + vitamin D₃; Group IV = bisphosphonate + calcium + vitamin D₃.

Discussion

Our study shows that, after experiencing a fragility fracture, 64.1% of patients did not receive appropriate treatment for osteoporosis at the time of discharge. This figure was further reduced to 32.9% at the 90-day follow up and 25.74% at 1 year. In comparison with our previous study,³ the current treatment figures were initially worse, but at the 1-year follow up our missed secondary prevention figures reached 25.74%. Regardless a deficiency in instating the appropriate treatment remained. We suggest that the reduction in patients not receiving appropriate treatment at 90 days and 1 year was attributable to correction of the treatment strategy by the specialists running the outpatient clinics. There are several reasons why patients may be discharged from hospital with insufficient treatment for osteoporosis. Being a tertiary care center with an ongoing residency training program, the orthopedic trauma department is staffed by a common pool of surgeons of various subspecialties. The majority of treatment deficiencies were identified among patients treated in the upper limb and sports injury unit, which treats older adults less frequently. Furthermore, training residents rotate every 3 months, and insufficient training in the treatment of osteoporosis after fragility fracture may result. Finally, among patients with very low vitamin D levels and high parathyroid hormone levels, the parathyroid levels required approximately 3 months to normalize before an anabolic agent (teraperatide) could be initiated, thus predisposing the patient to classification in one of the groups that received inadequate treatment.

Wilk et al.¹⁰ reported that, in a large population study, that 72% of women were neither investigated for osteoporosis nor offered any treatment for the condition, and that at 1 year only 23% received osteoporosis treatment. A recent study also showed that only 27.7% of women were treated with osteoporosis medications after fragility fractures within 12 months of the index fracture, while 72.2% were left untreated.^11–15

In the present study, 75% of patients received appropriate anti-osteoporotic treatment at 1 year, but a significant gap remains to be closed. Brandi (2014)¹⁶ stated that “Secondary fracture prevention is good, avoiding the first fracture, better still”. In European countries, primary prevention of fractures by early diagnosis and treatment peaked in approximately 2008, and is currently falling.¹⁷ It has been observed that male patients with osteoporosis were less likely to receive appropriate treatment after a fragility fracture compared with their female counterparts.¹⁸

This study had several limitations. Our analysis was performed retrospectively, and the number of cases was small. A key strength of our study, however, was the ability to compare the present data with those from a similar previous study from the same institution. In conclusion, our findings show a lack of improvement from the earlier reported study of the secondary prevention of fragility fractures. We have identified factors that potentially contribute to this lack of progress, and anticipate that appropriate education and the dissemination of the present study findings lead to future improvements in outcomes. Prevention of a second fracture is of critical importance for hospitalized patients with fragility fractures, and significant efforts alongside primary prevention programs are required to also decrease the incidence of the first fragility fracture.

Footnotes

Authors' contributions

All the authors have participated in the concept, gathering the data, review of literature and writing of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The data are available in the Research Monitoring Department of the Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Sadat-Ali

Al-Habdan

Al-Turki

et al . An epidemiological analysis of the incidence of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures among the Saudi Arabian population. Ann Saudi Med 2012; 32: 637–641.

Sadat-Ali

Alfaraidy

AlHawas

et al . Morbidity and mortality after fragility hip fracture in a Saudi Arabian population: report from a single center. J Int Med Res 2017; 45: 1175–1180.

Sadat-Ali

Al-Omran

Al-Bakr

et al . Established osteoporosis and gaps in the management: review from a teaching hospital. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014; 4: 198–201. doi: 10.4103/2141

Jennings

Auerbach

Maselli

et al . Missed opportunities for osteoporosis treatment in patients hospitalized for hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010; 58: 650‑657.

Hajcsar

Hawker

Bogoch

ER.

Investigation and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with fragility fractures.

CMAJ 2000; 163: 819–822.

Black

Follin

McDermott

MT.

Osteoporosis diagnosis and management following hip fracture. J Bone Miner Res 2001; 16: S214.

Papaioannou

Wiktorowicz

Adachi

et al . Mortality, independence in living, and re-fracture, one year following hip fracture in Canadians. J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Can 2000; 22: 591–597.

Berry

Samelson

Ngo

et al . Subsequent fracture in nursing home residents with a hip fracture: a competing risks approach. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56: 1887–1892.

Chapuy

Meunier

PJ.

Prevention of secondary hyperparathyroidism and hip fracture in elderly women with calcium and vita- min D3 supplements.

Osteoporos Int 1996; 6(Suppl 3): 60–63.

10.

Wilk

Sajjan

Modi

et al . Post-fracture pharmacotherapy for women with osteoporotic fracture: analysis of a managed care population in the USA. Osteoporos Int 2014; 25: 2777–2786.

11.

Keshishian

Boytsov

Burge

et al . Examining the treatment gap and risk of subsequent fractures among females with a fragility fracture in the US Medicare population. Osteoporos Int 2017; 28: 2485–2494. doi: 10.1007/s00198-017-4072-6. [Epub ahead of print]

12.

Svedbom

Hernlund

Ivergård

et al . EU review panel of the IOF. Osteoporosis in the European Union: a compendium of country specific reports. Arch Osteoporos 2013; 8: 137–218.

13.

Rosier

RN.

Expanding the role of the orthopaedic surgeon in the treatment of osteoporosis.

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 385: 57–67.

14.

Marsh

Akesson

Beaton

et al . Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 2011; 22: 2051–2065.

15.

Yates

Chauchard

Liew

et al . Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service. J Clin Densitom 2015; 18: 150–156.

16.

Brand

ML.

Secondary fracture prevention is good, avoiding the first fracture, better still. Medicographia 2014; 36: 192–196.

17.

Hernlund

Svedbom

Ivergård

et al.

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 2013; 8: 136. DOI: 10.1007/s11657‐013‐0136

18.

Marx

Quinn

CC.

Commentary: male osteoporosis–policy gaps in prevention and treatment. J Aging Soc Policy 2009; 21: 119–129.