Treatment of osteoporosis in an older home care population

BACKGROUND: Previous research indicates that many patients with fractures indicative of underlying osteoporosis are not receiving appropriate diagnostic follow-up and therapy. We assessed osteoporosis treatment coverage in older home care clients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis and/or prevalent fracture. METHODS: Subjects included 330 home care clients, aged 65+, participating in a longitudinal study of medication adherence and health-related outcomes. Data on clients' demographic, health and functional status and service utilization patterns were collected using the Minimum Data Set for Home Care (MDS-HC). A medication review included prescribed and over-the-counter medications taken in the past 7 days. Criteria for indications for osteoporosis therapy included diagnosis of osteoporosis or a recent fracture. Coverage for treatment was examined for anti-osteoporotic therapies approved for use in 2000. RESULTS: Of the 330 home care clients, 78 (24%) had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (n = 47) and/or had sustained a recent fracture (n = 34). Drug data were available for 77/78 subjects. Among the subjects with osteoporosis or a recent fracture, 45.5% were receiving treatment for osteoporosis; 14% were receiving only calcium and vitamin D, and an additional 31% were receiving drug therapy (bisphosphonate or hormone replacement therapy). The remaining 54.5% of subjects were not receiving any approved osteoporosis therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of undertreatment among a population of older adults with relatively high access to health care services raises concern regarding the adequacy of diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in the community

The osteoporosis care gap in Canada

BACKGROUND: The presence of a fragility fracture is a major risk factor for osteoporosis, and should be an indicator for osteoporosis diagnosis and therapy. However, the extent to which patients who fracture are assessed and treated for osteoporosis is not clear. METHODS: We performed a review of the literature to identify the practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in adults over the age of 40 who experience a fragility fracture in Canada. Searches were performed in MEDLINE (1966 to January 2, 2003) and CINAHL (1982 to February 1, 2003) databases. RESULTS: There is evidence of a care gap between the occurrence of a fragility fracture and the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in Canada. The proportion of individuals with a fragility fracture who received an osteoporosis diagnostic test or physician diagnosis ranged from 1.7% to 50%. Therapies such as hormone replacement therapy, bisphosphonates or calcitonin were being prescribed to 5.2% to 37.5% of patients. Calcium and vitamin D supplement intake was variable, and ranged between 2.8% to 61.6% of patients. CONCLUSION: Many Canadians who experience fragility fracture are not receiving osteoporosis management for the prevention of future fractures

Bone mineral density measurement and osteoporosis treatment after a fragility fracture in older adults: regional variation and determinants of use in Quebec

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis (OP) is a skeletal disorder characterized by reduced bone strength and predisposition to increased risk of fracture, with consequent increased risk of morbidity and mortality. It is therefore an important public health problem. International and Canadian associations have issued clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of OP. In this study, we identified potential predictors of bone mineral density (BMD) testing and OP treatment, which include place of residence. METHODS: Our study was a retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Quebec Health Insurance Board. The studied population consisted of all individuals 65 years and older for whom a physician claimed a consultation for a low velocity vertebral, hip, wrist, or humerus fracture in 1999 and 2000. Individuals were considered to have undergone BMD testing if there was a claim for such a procedure within two years following a fracture. They were considered to have received an OP treatment if there was at least one claim to Quebec's health insurance plan (RAMQ) for OP treatment within one year following a fracture. We performed descriptive analyses and logistic regressions by gender. Predictors included age, site of fracture, social status, comorbidity index, prior BMD testing, prior OP treatment, long-term glucocorticoid use, and physical distance to BMD device. RESULTS: The cohort, 77% of which was female, consisted of 25,852 individuals with fragility fractures. BMD testing and OP treatment rates were low and gender dependent (BMD: men 4.6%; women 13.1%; OP treatment: men 9.9%; women 29.7%). There was an obvious regional variation, particularly in BMD testing, ranging from 0 to 16%. Logistic regressions demonstrate that individuals living in long term care facilities received less BMD testing. Patients who had suffered from vertebral fractures, or who had received prior OP treatment or BMD testing, regardless of gender, subsequently received more BMD testing and OP treatments. Furthermore, increasing the distance between a patient's residence and BMD facility precluded likelihood of BMD testing. CONCLUSION: BMD testing rate was extremely low but not completely explained by reduced physical access; gender, age, social status, prior BMD testing and OP treatment were all important predictors for future BMD testing and OP treatment

Patients with femoral or distal forearm fracture in Germany: a prospective observational study on health care situation and outcome

BACKGROUND: Distal radius and proximal femoral fractures are typical injuries in later life, predominantly due to simple falls, but modulated by other relevant factors such as osteoporosis. Fracture incidence rates rise with age. Because of the growing proportion of elderly people in Western industrialized societies, the number of these fractures can be expected to increase further in the coming years, and with it the burden on healthcare resources. Our study therefore assessed the effects of these injuries on the health status of older people over time. The purpose of this paper is to describe the study method, clinical parameters of fracture patients during hospitalization, mortality up to one and a half years after discharge in relation to various factors such as type of fracture, and to describe changes in mobility and living situation. METHODS: Data were collected from all consecutive patients (no age limit) admitted to 423 hospitals throughout Germany with distal radius or femoral fractures (57% acute-care, femoral and forearm fractures; 43% rehabilitation, femoral fractures only) between January 2002 and September 2003. Polytrauma and coma patients were excluded. Demographic characteristics, exact fracture location, mobility and living situation, clinical and laboratory parameters were examined. Current health status was assessed in telephone interviews conducted on average 6–7 months after discharge. Where telephone contact could not be established, at least survival status (living/deceased/date of death) was determined. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 12,520 femoral fracture patients (86.8% hip fractures), average age 77.5 years, 76.5% female, and 2,031 forearm fracture patients, average age 67.6 years, 81.6% female. Women's average age was 6.6 (femoral fracture) to 10 years (forearm fracture) older than men's (p < 0.0001). Only 4.6% of femoral fracture patients experienced changes in their living situation post-discharge (53% because of the fracture event), although less than half of subjects who were able to walk without assistive devices prior to the fracture event (76.7%) could still do so at time of interview (34.9%). At time of interview, 1.5% of subjects were bed-ridden (0.2% before fracture). Forearm fracture patients reported no change in living situation at all. Of the femoral fracture patients 119 (0.95%), and of the forearm fracture patients 3 (0.15%) died during hospital stay. Post-discharge (follow-up one and a half years) 1,463 femoral fracture patients died (19.2% acute-care patients, 8.5% rehabilitation patients), but only 60 forearm fracture patients (3.0%). Ninety percent of femoral fracture deaths happened within the first year, approximately 66% within the first 6 months. More acute-care patients with a pertrochanteric fracture died within one year post-discharge (20.6%) than patients with a cervical fracture (16.1%). CONCLUSION: Mortality after proximal femoral fracture is still alarmingly high and highest after pertrochanteric fracture. Although at time of interview more than half of femoral fracture patients reported reduced mobility, most patients (96%) attempt to live at home. Since forearm fracture patients were on average 10 years younger than femoral fracture patients, forearm fractures may be a means of diagnosing an increased risk of later hip fractures

A Large Gene Network in Immature Erythroid Cells Is Controlled by the Myeloid and B Cell Transcriptional Regulator PU.1

PU.1 is a hematopoietic transcription factor that is required for the development of myeloid and B cells. PU.1 is also expressed in erythroid progenitors, where it blocks erythroid differentiation by binding to and inhibiting the main erythroid promoting factor, GATA-1. However, other mechanisms by which PU.1 affects the fate of erythroid progenitors have not been thoroughly explored. Here, we used ChIP-Seq analysis for PU.1 and gene expression profiling in erythroid cells to show that PU.1 regulates an extensive network of genes that constitute major pathways for controlling growth and survival of immature erythroid cells. By analyzing fetal liver erythroid progenitors from mice with low PU.1 expression, we also show that the earliest erythroid committed cells are dramatically reduced in vivo. Furthermore, we find that PU.1 also regulates many of the same genes and pathways in other blood cells, leading us to propose that PU.1 is a multifaceted factor with overlapping, as well as distinct, functions in several hematopoietic lineages

Análise da nova classificação de laudos de densitometria óssea Analysis of the new classification of bone densitometry reports

OBJETIVO: Comparar a nova normatização de laudos densitométricos de coluna lombar proposta pela International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) em 2005 com a classificação rotineiramente usada da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) desde 1994. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Foram analisados 200 exames de densitometria óssea da coluna lombar realizados na Universidade Católica de Brasília e no Hospital das Forças Armadas. Os critérios de inclusão foram: sexo feminino, idade mínima de 20 anos e máxima de 49 anos, e ausência de alterações morfológicas na coluna lombar visualizadas no exame densitométrico. Como critério de exclusão, foram consideradas as mulheres com mais de 50 anos ou em menopausa. RESULTADOS: Pela classificação da OMS, obtivemos 29 pacientes com osteoporose na coluna lombar, 76 com osteopenia e 95 em níveis de normalidade. Entretanto, pela nova classificação da ISCD 2005, apenas 32 pacientes foram classificados em valores "abaixo do estimado para a faixa etária" e 162, em valores "dentro do estimado para a faixa etária". CONCLUSÃO: Importante diferença foi encontrada na classificação dos resultados densitométricos ao se confrontar a classificação tradicional da OMS e a nova classificação proposta pela ISCD, o que ressalta a importância da divulgação da classificação entre os médicos que realizam e os que solicitam os exames, para a correta interpretação, explicação e orientação ao paciente.<br>OBJECTIVE: To compare the new normatization of bone densitometry reports on findings at the level of the lumbar spine (L1-L4) proposed by International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) in 2005, with the classification of World Health Organization (WHO) that was routinely been utilized since 1994. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bone densitometry studies performed on the lumbar spine of 200 patients at Universidade Católica de Brasília and Hospital das Forças Armadas, Brasília, DF, Brazil, have been evaluated. Inclusion criteria were: female gender, age ranging between 20 and 49 years, and absence of spine morphological changes visualized on the images. The exclusion criteria were: women more than 50 years or menopausal women. RESULTS: Analyzing the bone densitometry reports under the WHO classification, 29 patients were found with osteoporosis, 76 with osteopenia and 95 within normality levels. On the other hand, according to the new ISCD 2005 classification, only 32 patients presented results "below the expected range for age", and 162 "within the expected range for age". CONCLUSION: Significant differences were found when comparing the traditional WHO densitometric classification versus the new one proposed by ISCD 2005. So, this new classification should be known and understood by physicians who request or perform bone densitometry studies, aiming at the correct interpretation, explanation and orientation to the patients