Multifaceted intervention to improve diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with recent wrist fracture: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Older patients who experience a fragility fracture are at high risk of future fractures but are rarely tested or treated for osteoporosis. We developed a multifaceted intervention directed at older patients with wrist fractures (in the form of telephone-based education) and their physicians (in the form of guidelines endorsed by opinion leaders, supported by reminders) to improve the quality of osteoporosis care.

Methods

In a randomized controlled trial with blinded ascertainment of outcomes, we compared our intervention with usual care (provision of printed educational materials to patients). Eligible patients were those older than 50 years of age who had experienced a wrist fracture and were seen in emergency departments and fracture clinics; we excluded those who were already being treated for osteoporosis. The primary outcome was bisphosphonate treatment within 6 months after the fracture. Secondary outcomes included bone mineral density testing, “appropriate care” (consisting of bone mineral density testing with treatment if bone mass was low) and quality of life.

Results

We screened 795 patients for eligibility and randomly assigned 272 to the intervention (137 patients) or control (135 patients) group. The median age was 60 years; 210 (77%) of the subjects were women, and 130 (48%) reported a previous fracture as an adult. Six months after the fracture, 30 (22%) of the intervention patients, as compared with 10 (7%) of the control patients, were receiving bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis (adjusted relative risk [RR] 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–5.1, p = 0.008). Intervention patients were more likely than control patients to undergo bone mineral density testing (71/137 [52%] v. 24/135 [18%]; adjusted RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.9–4.2, p < 0.001) and to receive appropriate care (52/137 [38%] v. 15/135 [11%]; adjusted RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8–5.3, p < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in other outcomes. One patient died, and 4 others experienced recurrent fracture.

Interpretation

A multifaceted intervention directed at high-risk patients and their physicians substantially increased rates of testing and treatment for osteoporosis. Nevertheless, more than half of the patients in the intervention group were not receiving appropriate care 6 months after their fracture, which suggests that additional strategies should be explored. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00152321.)Osteoporosis is a common, chronic and costly condition affecting at least 25% of women and 12% of men over 50 years of age.^1–3 Without better prevention strategies, the incidence of and costs related to osteoporotic fractures are expected to increase by 50% over the next 2 decades.³ Case-finding and secondary prevention (e.g., by identifying patients who have experienced a fragility fracture, ensuring that their bone mineral density is tested and offering efficacious osteoporosis treatments to those with low bone mass) constitute the most cost-effective strategy for reducing future fractures.^4–6An obvious target group for case-finding consists of older patients who experience a wrist fracture. Wrist fracture is the most common symptomatic fracture related to osteoporosis; its occurrence is a powerful forecaster of future fractures, and these fractures typically occur 10–20 years before the more devastating osteoporosis-related fractures of the spine or the hip.⁷ Unfortunately, although most older patients with wrist fractures have low bone mass and are eligible for treatment,^4,7 less than about 10% to 20% are tested or treated for osteoporosis in the 6 to 12 months after a wrist fracture.^4–9We previously reported a nonrandomized study of an intervention that incorporated patient education, physician reminders and treatment guidelines endorsed by opinion leaders, to improve osteoporosis treatment in patients with wrist fractures; in that study, which involved 102 patients, the rate of treatment was 40% in the intervention group but only 10% in the group receiving usual care.⁷ Several concerns were raised about the internal and external validity of that small study, so we conducted a randomized controlled trial of the intervention, which is reported here.