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

Community-based randomised controlled trial evaluating falls and osteoporosis risk management strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant public health concern. Interventions that increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis, as well as prevention of fractures and falls, are substantially underutilized. This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial of a multifaceted community-based care program aimed at optimizing the evidence-based management of falls and fractures in patients at risk.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>6-month randomised controlled study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This population-based study was completed in the Algoma District of Ontario, Canada a geographically vast area with Sault Ste Marie (population 78 000) as its main city. Eligible patients were allocated to an immediate intervention protocol (IP) group, or a delayed intervention protocol (DP) group. The DP group received usual care for 6 months and then was crossed over to receive the interventions. Components of the intervention were directed at the physicians and their patients and included patient-specific recommendations for osteoporosis therapy as outlined by the clinical practice guidelines developed by Osteoporosis Canada, and falls risk assessment and treatment. Two primary outcomes were measured including implementation of appropriate osteoporosis and falls risk management. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and the number of falls, fractures, and hospital admissions over a twelve-month period. The patient is the unit of allocation and analysis. Analyses will be performed on an intention to treat basis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial of a multi-faceted, community-based intervention to optimize the implementation of evidence based management for patients at risk for falls and osteoporosis.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT00465387)</p

Community based intervention to optimize osteoporosis management: randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant public health concern. Interventions that increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis are underutilized. This pragmatic randomised study was done to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted community-based care program aimed at optimizing evidence-based management in patients at risk for osteoporosis and fractures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a 12-month randomized trial performed in Ontario, Canada. Eligible patients were community-dwelling, aged ≥55 years, and identified to be at risk for osteoporosis-related fractures. Two hundred and one patients were allocated to the intervention group or to usual care. Components of the intervention were directed towards primary care physicians and patients and included facilitated bone mineral density testing, patient education and patient-specific recommendations for osteoporosis treatment. The primary outcome was the implementation of appropriate osteoporosis management.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>101 patients were allocated to intervention and 100 to control. Mean age of participants was 71.9 ± 7.2 years and 94% were women. Pharmacological treatment (alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene) for osteoporosis was increased by 29% compared to usual care (56% [29/52] vs. 27% [16/60]; relative risk [RR] 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29 to 3.40). More individuals in the intervention group were taking calcium (54% [54/101] vs. 20% [20/100]; RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.12) and vitamin D (33% [33/101] vs. 20% [20/100]; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.65).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A multi-faceted community-based intervention improved management of osteoporosis in high risk patients compared with usual care.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT00465387)</p

Oral Bisphosphonates and Risk of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter in Women: A Self-Controlled Case-Series Safety Analysis

Background: A recent trial unexpectedly reported that atrial fibrillation, when defined as serious, occurred more often in participants randomized to an annual infusion of the relatively new parenteral bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, than among those given placebo, but had limited power. Two subsequent population-based case-control studies of patients receiving a more established oral bisphosphonate, alendronic acid, reported conflicting results, possibly due to uncontrolled confounding factors.Methodology/Principal Findings: We used the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database to assess the risk of atrial fibrillation and flutter in women exposed to the oral bisphosphonates, alendronic acid and risedronate sodium. The self-controlled case-series method was used to minimise the potential for confounding. The age-adjusted incidence rate ratio for atrial fibrillation or flutter in individuals during their exposure to these oral bisphosphonates (n = 2195) was 1.07 (95% CI 0.94 - 1.21). The age-adjusted incidence rate ratio for alendronic acid (n = 1489) and risedronate sodium (n = 649) exposed individuals were 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 - 1.26) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.78 - 1.26) respectively. In post-hoc analyses, an increased risk of incident atrial fibrillation or flutter was detected for patients during their first few months of alendronic acid therapy.Conclusions/Significance: We found no robust evidence of an overall long-term increased risk of atrial fibrillation or flutter associated with continued exposure to the oral bisphosphonates, alendronic acid and risedronate sodium. A possible signal for an increase in risk during the first few months of therapy with alendronic acid needs to be re-assessed in additional studies

Metformin treatment in diabetes and heart failure: when academic equipoise meets clinical reality

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>Metformin has had a 'black box' contraindication in diabetic patients with heart failure (HF), but many believe it to be the treatment of choice in this setting. Therefore, we attempted to conduct a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a large randomized controlled trial with clinical endpoints.</p> <p>Study Design</p> <p>The pilot study was a randomized double blinded placebo controlled trial. Patients with HF and type 2 diabetes were screened in hospitals and HF clinics in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (population ~1 million). Major exclusion criteria included the current use of insulin or high dose metformin, decreased renal function, or a glycosylated hemoglobin <7%. Patients were to be randomized to 1500 mg of metformin daily or matching placebo and followed for 6 months for a variety of functional outcomes, as well as clinical events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-eight patients were screened over a six month period and all were excluded. Because of futility with respect to enrollment, the pilot study was abandoned. The mean age of screened patients was 77 (SD 9) years and 57% were male. The main reasons for exclusion were: use of insulin therapy (n = 23; 40%), glycosylated hemoglobin <7% (n = 17; 29%) and current use of high dose metformin (n = 12; 21%). Overall, contraindicated metformin therapy was the most commonly prescribed oral antihyperglycemic agent (n = 27; 51%). On average, patients were receiving 1,706 mg (SD 488 mg) of metformin daily and 12 (44%) used only metformin.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite uncertainty in the scientific literature, there does not appear to be clinical uncertainty with regards to the safety or effectiveness of metformin in HF making a definitive randomized trial virtually impossible.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00325910</p

The diagnosis of colorectal cancer in patients with symptoms: finding a needle in a haystack

Patients often see primary care physicians with symptoms that might signal colorectal cancer but are also common in adults without cancer. Physicians and patients must then make a difficult decision about whether and how aggressively to evaluate the symptom. Favoring referral is that missed diagnoses lead to unnecessary testing, prolonged uncertainty, and continuing symptoms; also, the physician will suffer chagrin. It is not clear that diagnostic delay leads to progression to a more advanced stage. Against referral is that proper evaluation includes colonoscopy, with attendant inconvenience, discomfort, cost, and risk. The article by Hamilton et al, published this month in BMC Medicine, provides strong estimates of the predictive value of the various symptoms and signs of colorectal cancer and show how much higher predictive values are with increasing age and male sex. Unfortunately, their results also make clear that most colorectal cancers present with symptoms with low predictive values, < 1.2%. Models that include a set of predictive variables, that is, risk factors, age, sex, screening history, and symptoms, have been developed to guide primary prevention and clinical decision-making and are more powerful than individual symptoms and signs alone. Although screening for colorectal cancer is increasing in many countries, cancers will still be found outside screening programs so primary care physicians will remain at the front line in the difficult task of distinguishing everyday symptoms from life-threatening cancer

Genetic Variants Associated with Arsenic Susceptibility: Study of Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase, Arsenic (+3) Methyltransferase, and Glutathione S-Transferase Omega Genes

BACKGROUND: Individual variability in arsenic metabolism may underlie individual susceptibility toward arsenic-induced skin lesions and skin cancer. Metabolism of arsenic proceeds through sequential reduction and oxidative methylation being mediated by the following genes: purine nucleoside phosphorylase (PNP), arsenic (+3) methyltransferase (As3MT), glutathione S-transferase omega 1 (GSTO1), and omega 2 (GSTO2). PNP functions as arsenate reductase; As3MT methylates inorganic arsenic and its metabolites; and both GSTO1 and GSTO2 reduce the metabolites. Alteration in functions of these gene products may lead to arsenic-specific disease manifestations. OBJECTIVES: To find any probable association between arsenicism and the exonic single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the above-mentioned arsenic-metabolizing genes, we screened all the exons in those genes in an arsenic-exposed population. METHODS: Using polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, we screened the exons in 25 cases (individuals with arsenic-induced skin lesions) and 25 controls (individuals without arsenic-induced skin lesions), both groups drinking similar arsenic-contaminated water. The exonic SNPs identified were further genotyped in a total of 428 genetically unrelated individuals (229 cases and 199 controls) for association study. RESULTS: Among four candidate genes, PNP, As3MT, GSTO1, and GSTO2, we found that distribution of three exonic polymorphisms, His20His, Gly51Ser, and Pro57Pro of PNP, was associated with arsenicism. Genotypes having the minor alleles were significantly overrepresented in the case group: odds ratio (OR) = 1.69 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08–2.66] for His20His; OR = 1.66 [95% CI, 1.04–2.64] for Gly51Ser; and OR = 1.67 [95% CI, 1.05–2.66] for Pro57Pro. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the three PNP variants render individuals susceptible toward developing arsenic-induced skin lesions. KEY WORDS: arsenic, As3MT, GSTO1, GSTO2, PNP, skin lesion, susceptibility. Environ Health Perspect 116:501–505 (2008). doi:10.1289/ehp.10581 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 14 January 2008