Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 148 No. 0102 (2018)

Impact of a fracture liaison service on patient management after an osteoporotic fracture: the CHUV FLS

  • Bérengère Aubry-Rozier
  • Delphine Stoll
  • Elena Gonzalez Rodriguez
  • Didier Hans
  • Veronique Prudent
  • Ariane Seuret
  • Alain Farron
  • Olivier Lamy
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2018.14579
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2018;148:w14579
Published
04.01.2018

Summary

In 2008, the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland) initiated a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS). All patients hospitalised for a low trauma fracture are identified by the FLS. Inpatients then choose to be managed by either the FLS team or their general practitioner (GP). In this study we compared the management between the FLS team and the GP in terms of diagnosis of osteoporosis, treatment, refracture rates and mortality after FLS recording. Results are compared with the management of osteoporosis before the creation of the FLS, as reported in the survey study Osteocare.

A total of 606 patients were included (80% women); 55% chose management by the FLS and 45% their GP. The mean age was 78.5, and hip was the main fracture site (44%). The percentage of patients having dual X-ray absorptiometry to diagnose osteoporosis was significantly higher in the FLS group than the GP group (72 vs 26.5%, p <0.01). This percentage was 31.4% in the Osteocare study. Overall, 50.3% of patients in the FLS group had osteoporosis versus 57.5% in the GP group (p <0.05). This percentage was 46.0% in the Osteocare study.

Use of osteoporosis medication was higher in the FLS group (FLS 100% of the patients, GP 44.1%, p <0.001) and had increased since the Osteocare study (21.6%). One-year nonvertebral refracture rate was higher in GP group than in the FLS patients (5.1 vs 3.0%, p <0.05), whereas more vertebral fractures were identified in the FLS group, owing to protocol-driven regular clinical and vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) evaluations (number of evaluations 8 vs 0, p <0.01). Unadjusted mortality was higher in GP group than in the FLS group at one and five years (6.93 vs 2.11% and 33.58 vs. 15.96%, p <0.04). After adjustment by age and fracture site, these results were not significant.

With FLS management, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were more frequent than with GP management; new nonvertebral fractures were less frequent. Moreover, both forms of management had increased relative to rates reported in a 2004–2006 nationwide survey Osteocare, before FLS creation.

References

  1. Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Hernlund E, Rizzoli R, Kanis JA. Epidemiology and economic burden of osteoporosis in Switzerland. Arch Osteoporos. 2014;9(1):187. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-014-0187-y
  2. Rosengren BE, Karlsson MK. The annual number of hip fractures in Sweden will double from year 2002 to 2050: projections based on local and nationwide data. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(3):234–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.916491
  3. Friedman SM, Mendelson DA. Epidemiology of fragility fractures. Clin Geriatr Med. 2014;30(2):175–81. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2014.01.001
  4. Åkesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ, McLellan AR, Stenmark J, Pierroz DD, et al.; IOF Fracture Working Group. Capture the Fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(8):2135–52. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2348-z
  5. Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, Speerin R, Bleasel J, Center JR, et al. Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(2):393–406. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2090-y
  6. Walters S, Khan T, Ong T, Sahota O. Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12:117–27. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S85551
  7. Suhm N, Lamy O, Lippuner K ; OsteoCare study group. Management of fragility fractures in Switzerland: results of a nationwide survey. Swiss Med Wkly. 2008;138(45-46):674–83. https://smw.ch/en/article/doi/smw.2008.12294/.
  8. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, 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(1-2):136. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1
  9. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R. Remaining lifetime and absolute 10-year probabilities of osteoporotic fracture in Swiss men and women. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(7):1131–40. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0779-8
  10. Office fédéral de la santé publique. Ostéoporose et chutes des personnes âgées, une approche de santé publique. Berne: Office fédéral de la santé publique; 2004.
  11. Kanis JA, Borgström F, Compston J, Dreinhöfer K, Nolte E, Jonsson L, et al. SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8(1-2):144. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0144-1
  12. Kanis JA, Svedbom A, Harvey N, McCloskey EV. The osteoporosis treatment gap. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(9):1926–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2301
  13. Shipman KE, Stammers J, Doyle A, Gittoes N. Delivering a quality-assured fracture liaison service in a UK teaching hospital-is it achievable? Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(10):3049–56. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3639-y
  14. Murray AW, McQuillan C, Kennon B, Gallacher SJ. Osteoporosis risk assessment and treatment intervention after hip or shoulder fracture. A comparison of two centres in the United Kingdom. Injury. 2005;36(9):1080–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.03.012
  15. Majumdar SR, Beaupre LA, Harley CH, Hanley DA, Lier DA, Juby AG, et al. Use of a case manager to improve osteoporosis treatment after hip fracture: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):2110–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.19.2110
  16. Ruggiero C, Zampi E, Rinonapoli G, Baroni M, Serra R, Zengarini E, et al. Fracture prevention service to bridge the osteoporosis care gap. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:1035–42.
  17. Cosman F, Nicpon K, Nieves JW. Results of a fracture liaison service on hip fracture patients in an open healthcare system. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;29(2):331–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0545-2
  18. Dell R, Greene D, Schelkun SR, Williams K. Osteoporosis disease management: the role of the orthopaedic surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 4):188–94. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00628
  19. Siris ES, Miller PD, Barrett-Connor E, Faulkner KG, Wehren LE, Abbott TA, et al. Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment. JAMA. 2001;286(22):2815–22. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.22.2815
  20. Popp AW, Meer S, Krieg MA, Perrelet R, Hans D, Lippuner K. Bone mineral density (BMD) and vertebral trabecular bone score (TBS) for the identification of elderly women at high risk for fracture: the SEMOF cohort study. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(11):3432–8.
  21. Van der Kallen J, Giles M, Cooper K, Gill K, Parker V, Tembo A, et al. A fracture prevention service reduces further fractures two years after incident minimal trauma fracture. Int J Rheum Dis. 2014;17(2):195–203. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.12101
  22. Dehamchia-Rehailia N, Ursu D, Henry-Desailly I, Fardellone P, Paccou J. Secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: evaluation of the Amiens University Hospital’s fracture liaison service between January 2010 and December 2011. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(10):2409–16. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2774-6
  23. Huntjens KM, van Geel TA, van den Bergh JP, van Helden S, Willems P, Winkens B, et al. Fracture liaison service: impact on subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidence and mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(4):e29. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00223
  24. Nakayama A, Major G, Holliday E, Attia J, Bogduk N. Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(3):873–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3443-0
  25. Casez P, Uebelhart B, Gaspoz JM, Ferrari S, Louis-Simonet M, Rizzoli R. Targeted education improves the very low recognition of vertebral fractures and osteoporosis management by general internists. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(7):965–70. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-0064-z
  26. Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, Eastell R, Genant H, Grauer A, et al.; IMPACT Study Group. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(4):557–63. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1359/JBMR.041214
  27. Sosa M, Saavedra P, Gómez-de-Tejada MJ, Navarro MD, Jódar E, García E, et al. High prevalence of undiagnosed vertebral fractures in patients suffering from hip fracture at their hospital admission: weak concordance among observers. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015;27(6):835–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-015-0365-9
  28. Reniu AC, Ong T, Ajmal S, Sahota O. Vertebral fracture assessment in patients presenting with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture: experience of a UK Fracture Liaison Service. Arch Osteoporos. 2017;12(1):23. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0318-3
  29. Gehlbach SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M, May S, Walker M, Kirkwood JR. Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11(7):577–82. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070078
  30. Aubry-Rozier B, Fabreguet I, Iglesias K, Lamy O, Hans D. Impact of level of expertise versus the statistical tool on vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) readings in cohort studies. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(2):523–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3757-6
  31. Lee JH, Lee YK, Oh SH, Ahn J, Lee YE, Pyo JH, et al. A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) in postmenopausal women and elderly men. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(5):1691–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3436-z
  32. Hawley S, Javaid MK, Prieto-Alhambra D, Lippett J, Sheard S, Arden NK, et al.; REFReSH study group. Clinical effectiveness of orthogeriatric and fracture liaison service models of care for hip fracture patients: population-based longitudinal study. Age Ageing. 2016;45(2):236–42. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv204
  33. Wu F, Laslett LL, Wills K, Oldenburg B, Jones G, Winzenberg T. Effects of individualized bone density feedback and educational interventions on osteoporosis knowledge and self-efficacy: a 12-yr prospective study. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17(4):466–72. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2014.07.008
  34. Winzenberg T, Oldenburg B, Frendin S, De Wit L, Riley M, Jones G. The effect on behavior and bone mineral density of individualized bone mineral density feedback and educational interventions in premenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00273260] [NCT00273260]. BMC Public Health. 2006;6(1):12. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-12
  35. Sale JE, Gignac MA, Frankel L, Hawker G, Beaton D, Elliot-Gibson V, et al. Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture--a new understanding based on fracture patients’ communication. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(12):2829–34. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-1914-0
  36. Giangregorio L, Dolovich L, Cranney A, Adili A, Debeer J, Papaioannou A, et al. Osteoporosis risk perceptions among patients who have sustained a fragility fracture. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(2):213–20. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.001

Most read articles by the same author(s)