The purpose of this study was to estimate the burden of osteoporotic fractures beyond the hospitalization period covering up to the first year after the fracture. This was a prospective, 12-month, observational study including patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized due to a first low-trauma hip fracture, in six Spanish regions. Health resource utilization (HRU), quality of life (QoL) and autonomy were collected and total costs calculated. Four hundred and eighty seven patients (mean ± SD age 83 ± 7 years, 77 % women) were included. Twenty-two percent of patients reported a prior non-hip low-trauma fracture, 16 % were receiving osteoporotic treatment at baseline, and 3 % had densitometry performed (1.8 % T-score ≤−2.5). Sixteen percent of patients died (women 14 %; men 25 %; p = 0.0011) during the first year. Mean hospital stay was 11.8 ± 7.9 days and 95.1 % of patients underwent surgery. Other relevant HRUs were: outpatient visits in 78 % of patients (mean 9.2 ± 9.7); walking aids, 58.7 %; rehabilitation facilities, 35.5 % (28.7 ± 41.2 sessions); and formal and informal home care, 22.2 % (49.6 ± 72.2 days) and 53.4 % (77.1 ± 101.0 h), respectively. Mean direct cost was €9690 (95 % confidence interval: 9184–10,197) in women and €9019 (8079–9958) in men. Main cost drivers were: first hospitalization episode (women €7067 [73 %]; men €7196 [80 %]); outpatient visits (€1323 [14 %]; €997 [11 %]); and home care (€905 [9 %]; €767 [9 %]). QoL and autonomy showed a marked decrease during hospitalization, not entirely recovered at 12 months (p < 0.05 vs. baseline for EQ-5D, Harris hip score and modified Barthel index). In a Spanish setting, osteoporotic hip fractures incur a high societal and economic cost, mainly due to the first hospitalization HRU, but also due to subsequent outpatient visits and home care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00223-016-0193-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SummaryTo reach a Spanish expert consensus on a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis, a Delphi Consensus Study has been developed. Most of the experts (59.8%) were rheumatologist with a mean clinical experience of 21.3 years (SD 8.5). Consensus was achieved for 70% of the items. Therapeutic objectives, patient follow-up scheme, treatment failure criteria, and appropriate treatment choice for use in T2T strategy in Spain have been defined.IntroductionThe paper aims to achieve a Spanish expert consensus on a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in osteoporosis.MethodsA scientific committee led the project and was involved in expert panel identification and Delphi questionnaire development. Two Delphi rounds were completed. The first-round questionnaire included 24 items and assessed, using a seven-point Likert scale, the experts’ wish (W) and prognosis (P) in 5 years for each topic (applicability, therapeutic objectives, patient follow-up, and possible treatment to be prescribed). Items for which there was no consensus in the first round were included in the second round. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement (somewhat/mostly/entirely agree) or disagreement (somewhat/mostly/entirely disagree) responses.ResultsOf the experts, 112 and 106 completed the first and second rounds, respectively. 59.8% were rheumatologists with a mean clinical experience of 21.3 years (SD 8.5). Consensus was achieved for 70% of the items, and was established regarding the utility of a T2T strategy to define therapeutic objectives, optimal follow-up, and therapeutic algorithm. Participants agreed on the utility of the bone mineral density (BMD) value (T-score >−2.5 SD for spine and >−2.5/−2.0 SD for femoral neck), lack of fractures, and fracture risk (FRAX) as therapeutic objectives. For measuring BMD changes, consensus was achieved on the suitability of hip and femoral neck locations. Experts agreed to consider treatment failure as when a significant BMD gain could not be achieved, or when a new fracture occurs within 2–3 years. There was consensus that all proposed therapies should achieve a therapeutic target through T2T strategy (treatments with the highest consensus scores were denosumab and teriparatide).ConclusionThe therapeutic objectives, patient follow-up scheme, treatment failure criteria, and appropriate treatment choice for use in T2T strategy in Spain have been established by a panel of experts. Some aspects nevertheless still require further analysis.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Aims Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microstructural deterioration of bone tissues, resulting in bone fragility and increased fracture risk. It is the most common bone‐related disease in the population. However, the proportion of patients who start treatment but discontinue it during the first year is very high (around 50%). Endeavors are made to promote patient participation in treatment by implementing patient decision aids (PDA), whose function is to help the patient make disease‐related decisions. We aim to summarize the characteristics of the currently available PDA for osteoporosis, as well as deciding factors. Methods Comprehensive review of the literature. Results Currently, eleven PDAs can be found for osteoporosis. These PDA have different characteristics or options such as information about treatments tailored to patient needs, graphic information of the results (to facilitate understanding), personal histories (learning), tests to check the knowledge acquired, provision of evidence, clinical practice guidelines or a final summary to share with their doctor. Only five of these PDAs can be considered complete since they provide relevant disease information and therapeutic options to the patient, promote patient's reflection and foment patient‐physician discussion. Conclusions This study provides an update on the current state of decision making on osteoporosis and available PDA, which can help engage the patient through shared decision‐making by considering, among other things, patient preferences. Physicians should consider PDA, as it may promote adherence and effectiveness of treatment.

The coordination of Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) with Primary Care (PC) is necessary for the continuity of care of patients with fragility fractures. This study proposes a Best Practice Framework (BPF) and performance indicators for the implementation and follow-up of FLS-PC coordination in clinical practice in Spain. Purpose To develop a BPF for the coordination of FLS with PC in Spain and to improve the continuity of care for patients with fragility fractures. Methods A Steering Committee selected experts from seven Spanish FLS and related PC doctors and nurses to participate in a best practice workshop. Selection criteria were an active FLS with an identified champion and prior contact with PC centres linked to the hospital. The main aim of the workshop was to review current FLS practices in Spain and their integration with PC. A BPF document with processes, tools, roles, and metrics was then generated. Results Spanish FLS consists of a multidisciplinary team of physicians/nurses but with low participation of other professionals and PC staff. Evaluation and treatment strategies are widely variable. Four desired standards were agreed upon: (1) Effective channels for FLS-PC communication; (2) minimum contents of an FLS clinical report and its delivery to PC; (3) adherence monitoring 3 months after FLS baseline visit; and (4) follow-up by PC. Proposed key performance indicators are (a) number of FLS-PC communications, including consensus protocols; (b) confirmation FLS report received by PC; (c) medical/nursing PC appointment after FLS report received; and (d) number of training sessions in PC. Conclusions The BPF provides a comprehensive approach for FLS-PC coordination in Spain, to promote the continuity of care in patients with fragility fractures and improve secondary prevention. The implementation of BPF recommendations and performance indicator tracking will benchmark best FLS practices in the future.

Summary In Spanish primary care (PC), the prevalence of fragility fractures (FF) in subjects ≥ 70 years old is high, especially in women. One-third of subjects with an FF lacked osteoporosis (OP) diagnosis and >50% were not currently receiving OP medication. An improvement of the FF management in this population is needed. Purpose In Spanish PC, the prevalence of FF is high, especially in women. One-third of subjects with a FF lacked an OP diagnosis and more than half were not currently receiving OP medication. Several studies reported underdiagnosis/undertreatment of OP in PC among elderly subjects with FF. To date, no such data exist for Spain. The purpose is to estimate the prevalence of FF in the elderly population (≥ 70 years old) and to describe the characteristics, risk factors, comorbidities, and OP diagnosis and treatment rates of subjects with FF in Spanish PC centers. Methods This is an observational, retrospective study in Spain consisting of two phases. Phase A included all subjects ≥ 70 years old listed in the center’s medical records from November 2018 to March 2020. Phase B included subjects with FF and prior consultation at the center for any reason. Subjects were excluded only if they had previously participated in another study. Primary outcomes were prevalence of FF (phase A) and characteristics of subjects with at least one FF (phase B). Results The overall prevalence of FF was 17.7% among subjects visiting medical centers for any reason (24.1% women vs. 8.0% men) (30 PC centers from 14 Spanish regions). Vertebral (5.1%) was the most prevalent fracture. Of 665 subjects in phase B, most (87%) were women and ≥ 80 years old (57%), suffered mainly major OP fracture (68%), and had multiple comorbidities (≥ 2, 89.2%). While two-thirds had OP diagnosis and 61.1% received OP medication anytime in the past, 56.8% were not currently receiving OP medication. Diagnosis and treatment rates were lower among men (43% and 38% vs. 70% and 65%, respectively). Conclusion Prevalence of FF was high, especially in women. One-third of subjects lacked OP diagnosis and ≥ 50% were not receiving OP treatment; diagnosis and treatment gaps were larger among men. This reinforces the need to improve the management of FF in the elderly population. However, as PC centers participating in this study had high OP experience that have the potential to do better in terms of diagnosis and treatment, caution in the generalization of these data should be taken.

No abstract