Arthritis & Rheumatism, Volume 62,
November 2010 Abstract Supplement
Abstracts of the American College of
Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals
Annual Scientific Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia November 6-11, 2010.
Bridging the Gap in Osteoporosis Care, Part I: Results of the SPOOF (Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fracture) Project.
A. Langan, Mary, J. Carey, John, J. Coughlan, Robert, Armstrong, Catherine, O'Brien, Assumpta, McNamara, Sarah, Murphy, Ella
Many agents have been shown to reduce the risk of future fracture in patients presenting with osteoporotic fractures. Despite widespread availability for over a decade, studies show that most patients are not evaluated or treated for osteoporosis following such fractures. Thus effective measures to improve the evaluation and treatment of osteoporosis following fragility fracture are needed.
To examine the effectiveness of an outpatient fracture intervention program to improve the rates of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment among fracture patients aged 50 years and older seen in orthopedics fracture clinics.
Collection and analysis of data was approved by the local Institutional Review Board. We evaluated the rate of osteoporosis evaluation, diagnosis and treatment among a cohort of patients aged 50 years and older presenting to our University Hospital Orthopaedic clinic with a fragility fracture between 2005 and 2007. Groups were either assessed as part of a fracture liaison program or exposed to usual orthopedic care with referral back to their primary care doctor following treatment. A mail and telephone survey was undertaken of 190 patients in both cohorts 2 years following their fracture clinic visit. We compared the rate of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment between the two cohorts within 2 years of their fracture.
There was a greater response rate among those in active intervention group (74% Vs 63%). The most common fracture site was wrist and forearm in both groups. Age and gender of respondents was similar between the intervention and control groups: 66 years & 92% vs 71 years & 86% respectively. Treatment rates were similar between both groups before fracture (<20%). Significantly more subjects seen by a fracture liaison coordinator received: 1) a bone density measurement (89% Vs 47%, P <0.01); 2) osteoporosis treatment with calcium and vitamin D (81% vs 33%, P<0.01); and 3) pharmacologic therapy for osteoporosis (48% Vs 27%, P<0.01).
A case-finding fracture liaison service improves the rate of osteoporosis diagnosis and therapy following fragility fracture in persons of 50 years and older.
To cite this abstract, please use the following information:
A. Langan, Mary, J. Carey, John, J. Coughlan, Robert, Armstrong, Catherine, O'Brien, Assumpta, McNamara, Sarah, et al; Bridging the Gap in Osteoporosis Care, Part I: Results of the SPOOF (Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fracture) Project. [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62 Suppl 10 :989