Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle

Summary The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) Capture the Fracture Campaign aims to support implementation of Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) throughout the world. Introduction FLS have been shown to close the ubiquitous secondary fracture prevention care gap, ensuring that fragility fracture sufferers receive appropriate assessment and intervention to reduce future fracture risk. Methods Capture the Fracture has developed internationally endorsed standards for best practice, will facilitate change at the national level to drive adoption of FLS and increase awareness of the challenges and opportunities presented by secondary fracture prevention to key stakeholders. The Best Practice Framework (BPF) sets an international benchmark for FLS, which defines essential and aspirational elements of service delivery. Results The BPF has been reviewed by leading experts from many countries and subject to beta-testing to ensure that it is internationally relevant and fit-for-purpose. The BPF will also serve as a measurement tool for IOF to award ‘Capture the Fracture Best Practice Recognition’ to celebrate successful FLS worldwide and drive service development in areas of unmet need. The Capture the Fracture website will provide a suite of resources related to FLS and secondary fracture prevention, which will be updated as new materials become available. A mentoring programme will enable those in the early stages of development of FLS to learn from colleagues elsewhere that have achieved Best Practice Recognition. A grant programme is in development to aid clinical systems which require financial assistance to establish FLS in their localities. Conclusion Nearly half a billion people will reach retirement age during the next 20 years. IOF has developed Capture the Fracture because this is the single most important thing that can be done to directly improve patient care, of both women and men, and reduce the spiralling fracture-related care costs worldwide.</p

Long-term efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of ibandronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Charles A Inderjeeth,1,2 Paul Glendenning,2,3 Shoba Ratnagobal,1 Diren Che Inderjeeth,1 Chandni Ondhia1 1Department of Geriatric Medicine and Rheumatology, North Metropolitan Health Service, 2School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, 3Department of Clinical Biochemistry, PathWest Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia Abstract: Several second-generation bisphosphonates (BPs) are approved in osteoporosis treatment. Efficacy and safety depends on potency of farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) inhibition, hydroxyapatite affinity, compliance and adherence. The latter may be influenced by frequency and route of administration. A literature search using &ldquo;ibandronate&rdquo;, &ldquo;postmenopausal osteoporosis&rdquo;, &ldquo;fracture&rdquo;, and &ldquo;bone mineral density&rdquo; (BMD) revealed 168 publications. The Phase III BONE study, using low dose 2.5 mg daily oral ibandronate demonstrated 49% relative risk reduction (RRR) in clinical vertebral fracture after 3 years. Non-vertebral fracture (NVF) reduction was demonstrated in a subgroup (pretreatment T-score &le; -3.0; RRR 69%) and a meta-analysis of high annual doses (150 mg oral monthly or intravenous equivalent of ibandronate; RRR 38%). Hip fracture reduction was not demonstrated. Long-term treatment efficacy has been confirmed over 5 years. Long term safety is comparable to placebo over 3 years apart from flu-like symptoms which are more common with oral monthly and intravenous treatments. No cases of atypical femoral fracture or osteonecrosis of the jaw have been reported in randomized controlled trial studies. Ibandronate inhibits FPPS more than alendronate but less than other BPs which could explain rate of action onset. Ibandronate has a higher affinity for hydroxyapatite compared with risedronate but less than other BPs which could affect skeletal distribution and rate of action offset. High doses (150 mg oral monthly or intravenous equivalent) were superior to low doses (oral 2.5 mg daily) according to 1 year BMD change. Data are limited by patient selection, statistical power, under-dosing, and absence of placebo groups in high dose studies. Ibandronate treatment offers different doses and modalities of administration which could translate into higher adherence rates, an important factor when the two main limitations of BP treatment are initiation and adherence rates. However, lack of consistency in NVF reduction and absence of hip fracture data limits more generalized use of this agent. Keywords: fracture, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, alendronat

Retrospective analysis of the clinical course of patients treated for polymyalgia

Dung Do-Nguyen,1 Charles A Inderjeeth,1&ndash;3 Jack Edelman,2 Patrick Cheah2 1Rehabilitation and Aged Care, North Metropolitan Health Service, 2Department of Rheumatology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, 3Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacology, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia Background: Polymyalgia rheumatica is a chronic inflammatory rheumatic condition, for which the mainstay of treatment is corticosteroids. Here, we review the clinical course of treated patients initially presenting with polymyalgic symptoms. Methods: A retrospective audit was performed of patients who presented with a possible diagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica. Biochemical markers and prednisone doses were assessed at the initial review, at one month, and 3, 6, and 12 months later. Results: A cohort of 135 patients was identified, comprising 91 females and 44 males of mean age 70.7 years. All patients were treated with oral prednisone at an initial mean dose of 21.3 mg. Mean baseline C-reactive protein level and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were 41.6 mg/L and 48.6 mm/hour, respectively. Following initiation of therapy, there was a dramatic and sustained decrease in both inflammatory markers. A clinical response was observed in 96.2% of patients, but remission was achieved in only 18.2%. Of those initially diagnosed with polymyalgia rheumatica, 24.8% were subsequently diagnosed with a different rheumatic condition. Conclusion: The excellent response rate to corticosteroid therapy is well established in the literature, but in this research, remission rates were comparatively low during the 12-month study period. The current value of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic therapy appears uncertain, and further trials to establish their precise role would be beneficial. A large portion of patients presenting with polymyalgia were eventually diagnosed to have another rheumatic disease, thus reflecting the broad differential diagnosis of polymyalgia symptoms. Polymyalgia symptoms can occur in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica and other rheumatic conditions. This group has a good response to prednisone therapy, although remission at 12 months appears to be uncommon. The gold standard of treatment remains corticosteroid therapy. Keywords: polymyalgia rheumatica, diagnosis, treatmen

Implementation of the Western Australian Osteoporosis Model of Care: a fracture liaison service utilising emergency department information systems to identify patients with fragility fracture to improve current practice and reduce re-fracture rates: a 12-month analysis

© 2018 International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation Summary: Fracture liaison service linked to an emergency department database effectively identifies patients with OP, improves best practice care, reduces recurrent fractures, and improves quality of life (QoL). The next step is to establish cost-effectiveness. This should be seen as the standard model of care. Introduction: The Western Australian Osteoporosis Model of Care recommends implementation of a fracture liaison service (FLS) to manage patients with minimal trauma fractures (MTFs). This study evaluates the efficacy of a FLS linked to a tertiary hospital emergency department information system (EDIS) in reducing recurrent fractures. Methods: Patients aged = 50 years with MTF identified from EDIS were invited to the FLS. Patient outcomes were compared to routine care (retrospective group—same hospital, and prospective group—other hospital) at 3- and 12-month follow-up. Results: Two hundred forty-one of 376 (64.1%) eligible patients participated in the FLS with 12 months of follow-up. Absolute risk of recurrent MTF at 12 months was reduced by 9.2 and 10.2% compared with the prospective and retrospective controls, respectively. After age/sex adjustment, FLS participants had less MTF at 12 months vs. the retrospective controls, OR 0.38 (95%CI 0.18–0.79), but not the prospective controls, OR 0.40 (95%CI 0.16–1.01). FLS patients were more likely to receive the ‘best practice’ care, i.e. awareness of osteoporosis, investigations, and treatment (all p &lt; 0.05). ‘Fallers’ (OR 0.48 (95%CI 0.24, 0.96)) and fall rates were lower in the FLS (p = 0.001) compared to the prospective control. FLS experienced the largest improvement in QoL from 3 to 12 months as measured by the EuroQoL 5-domain (EQ-5D) UK weighted score (+ 15 vs. - 11 vs. - 16%, p &lt; 0.001) and EQ-5D Health State visual analogue scale (+ 29 vs. - 2 vs. + 1%, p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion: Patients managed in a linked EDIS-FLS were more likely to receive the ‘best practice’ care and had lower recurrent MTF and improved QoL