Scholarlink

<i>Summary</i> <p>Osteoporotic fractures are associated with morbidity, mortality and high healthcare costs. Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) prevent subsequent osteoporotic fractures but are traditionally limited to include major osteoporotic fractures (MOF). When the FLS at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde, Sweden&#xa0;included both MOF and non-MOF, treatment indication was present for 51% (Number&#xa0;Needed to&#xa0;Screen (NNS) 1.41) and 71% (NNS 1.95), respectively. High treatment indication rates and low NNS were observed both in patients with MOF and non-MOF, suggesting that all fracture patients should be included in FLSs.</p> Background <p>Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) are coordinator-based, multidisciplinary programmes that provide systematic secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Many FLS programmes have been limited to major osteoporotic fractures (MOF, i.e. vertebrae, hip, proximal humerus, wrist and pelvis), but it is unclear whether patients with other types of fractures have similar risk profiles, as defined by low bone mineral density (BMD) and present clinical risk factors (CRF).</p> Objective <p>To compare key characteristics related to fracture risk (e.g. FRAX and BMD) and eligibility for osteoporosis treatment between patients with a recent non-MOF and those with recent MOF after inclusion in an FLS at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde, Sweden.</p> Methods <p>Patients 50&#xa0;years and older with a BMD measurement between December 2023 and May 2024, with a recent fracture were included (<i>N</i> = 705). Data on age, sex, CRFs, FRAX score, BMD, trabecular bone score, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and physician-issued assessment of osteoporosis treatment indication from the FLS evaluation were collected. Differences were analyzed using <i>t</i>-tests, chi-square tests, and expressed as standardized mean differences. The odds ratio (OR) for osteoporosis treatment indication (yes/no) was calculated using logistic regression for non-MOF vs. MOF, with adjustment for incremental number of confounders.</p> Results <p>There were high rates of osteoporosis treatment indication in both non-MOF (51%) and MOF (71%) patients, and low numbers needed to screen (NNS) to identify one patient with osteoporosis treatment indication in both the non-MOF (1.95) and MOF groups (1.41). When comparing non-MOF and MOF within the subgroup of patients with osteoporosis treatment indication, BMD and risk profiles were similar.</p> Conclusion <p>The proportions of patients with osteoporosis treatment indications were high regardless of fracture site category, indicating that patients with both recent non-MOF and MOF should be included in FLS programmes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Osteoporosis treatment indications following fracture: identifying relevant fracture sites for Fracture Liaison Services

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月21日

查看全文
  • Mattias Lorentzon,
  • Christine Florberger,
  • Javier Merina,
  • Eric Bertholds,
  • Henrik Litsne,
  • Kristian F. Axelsson

摘要

Summary

Osteoporotic fractures are associated with morbidity, mortality and high healthcare costs. Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) prevent subsequent osteoporotic fractures but are traditionally limited to include major osteoporotic fractures (MOF). When the FLS at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde, Sweden included both MOF and non-MOF, treatment indication was present for 51% (Number Needed to Screen (NNS) 1.41) and 71% (NNS 1.95), respectively. High treatment indication rates and low NNS were observed both in patients with MOF and non-MOF, suggesting that all fracture patients should be included in FLSs.

Background

Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) are coordinator-based, multidisciplinary programmes that provide systematic secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Many FLS programmes have been limited to major osteoporotic fractures (MOF, i.e. vertebrae, hip, proximal humerus, wrist and pelvis), but it is unclear whether patients with other types of fractures have similar risk profiles, as defined by low bone mineral density (BMD) and present clinical risk factors (CRF).

Objective

To compare key characteristics related to fracture risk (e.g. FRAX and BMD) and eligibility for osteoporosis treatment between patients with a recent non-MOF and those with recent MOF after inclusion in an FLS at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde, Sweden.

Methods

Patients 50 years and older with a BMD measurement between December 2023 and May 2024, with a recent fracture were included (N = 705). Data on age, sex, CRFs, FRAX score, BMD, trabecular bone score, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and physician-issued assessment of osteoporosis treatment indication from the FLS evaluation were collected. Differences were analyzed using t-tests, chi-square tests, and expressed as standardized mean differences. The odds ratio (OR) for osteoporosis treatment indication (yes/no) was calculated using logistic regression for non-MOF vs. MOF, with adjustment for incremental number of confounders.

Results

There were high rates of osteoporosis treatment indication in both non-MOF (51%) and MOF (71%) patients, and low numbers needed to screen (NNS) to identify one patient with osteoporosis treatment indication in both the non-MOF (1.95) and MOF groups (1.41). When comparing non-MOF and MOF within the subgroup of patients with osteoporosis treatment indication, BMD and risk profiles were similar.

Conclusion

The proportions of patients with osteoporosis treatment indications were high regardless of fracture site category, indicating that patients with both recent non-MOF and MOF should be included in FLS programmes.