Since the publication of the Osteoporosis Canada guidelines in 2002, there has been a paradigm shift in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and fractures.1,2 The focus now is on preventing fragility fractures and their negative consequences, rather than on treating low bone mineral density, which is viewed as only one of several risk factors for fracture. Given that certain clinical factors increase the risk of fracture independent of bone mineral density, it is important to take an integrated approach and to base treatment decisions on the absolute risk of fracture. Current data suggest that many patients with fractures do not undergo appropriate assessment or treatment.3 To address this care gap for high-risk patients, the 2010 guidelines concentrate on the assessment and management of women and men over age 50 who are at high risk of fragility fractures and the integration of new tools for assessing the 10-year risk of fracture into overall management.
Burden and care gapsFragility fractures, the consequence of osteoporosis, are responsible for excess mortality, morbidity, chronic pain, admission to institutions and economic costs. [4][5][6] They represent 80% of all fractures in menopausal women over age 50.3 Those with hip or vertebral fractures have substantially increased risk of death after the fracture.5 Postfracture mortality and institutionalization rates are higher for men than for women.
7Despite the high prevalence of fragility fractures in the Canadian population and the knowledge that fractures predict future fractures, 8 fewer than 20% of women 3,9 and 10% of men 10 receive therapies to prevent further fractures. These statistics contrast sharply with the situation for cardiovascular disease, where 75% of patients who have had myocardial infarction receive β-blockers to prevent another event.
11
Scope of the guidelinesThe target population for these guidelines is women and men over age 50, because of the overall burden of illness in that age group. As a consequence, we focused our systematic literature reviews on this population. The application of these guidelines to children and young adults, as well as high-risk groups such as transplant recipients, was considered, but indepth reviews of conditions that increase risk were largely beyond the scope of these guidelines.
Development of the guidelinesThe development of these guidelines followed the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) framework. 12 We surveyed primary care physicians, patients, osteoporosis specialists from various disciplines, radiologists, allied health professionals and health policy-makers to identify priorities for these guidelines. We then conducted system-