The Impact of a Fracture Liaison Service After 3 years on Secondary Fracture Prevention and Mortality in a Portuguese Tertiary Center

Overview

Journal Arch Osteoporos

Publisher Springer

Date 2023 Dec 19

PMID 38110537

Authors

Susana P Silva

Carolina Mazeda

Paulo Vilas-Boas

Maria do Ceu Portelada

Gisela Eugenio

Anabela Barcelos

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) have been established worldwide, with positive effects on treatment, secondary fracture, mortality, and economic burden. However, no study has evaluated their impact on the Portuguese population. Therefore, we purposed to evaluate the effect of an FLS model in a Portuguese center on osteoporosis (OP) treatment, secondary fracture, and mortality rates, 3 years after a fragility fracture.

Methods: Patients over 50 years old, admitted with a fragility fracture, between January 2017 and December 2020, were included in this retrospective study. Patients evaluated after FLS implementation (2019-2020) were compared with those evaluated before (2017-2018) and followed for 36 months. Predictors of secondary fracture and mortality were assessed using a multivariate Cox regression model, adjusted to potential confounders.

Results: A total of 551 patients were included (346 before and 205 after FLS). The FLS significantly increased the rate of OP treatment, when compared with standard clinical practice (8.1% vs 77.6%). During follow-up, the secondary fracture rate was 14.7% and 7.3%, before and after FLS, respectively. FLS was associated with a lower risk of secondary fracture (HR 0.39, C.I. 0.16-0.92). Although we observed a lower mortality rate (25.1% vs 13.7%), FLS was not a significant predictor of survival.

Conclusion: Implementing the FLS model in a Portuguese center has increased OP treatment and reduced the risk of secondary fracture. We believe that our work supports adopting FLS models in national programs.

References

Pisani P, Renna M, Conversano F, Casciaro E, Di Paola M, Quarta E . Major osteoporotic fragility fractures: Risk factor updates and societal impact. World J Orthop. 2016; 7(3):171-81. PMC: 4794536. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i3.171. View

Branco J, Rodrigues A, Gouveia N, Eusebio M, Ramiro S, Machado P . Prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and their impact on health-related quality of life, physical function and mental health in Portugal: results from EpiReumaPt- a national health survey. RMD Open. 2016; 2(1):e000166. PMC: 4731842. DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000166. View

Kanis J, Norton N, Harvey N, Jacobson T, Johansson H, Lorentzon M . SCOPE 2021: a new scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos. 2021; 16(1):82. PMC: 8172408. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-020-00871-9. View

Barcelos A, Goncalves J, Mateus C, Canhao H, Rodrigues A . Costs of incident non-hip osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women from a payer perspective. Osteoporos Int. 2023; 34(12):2111-2119. PMC: 10651527. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06881-w. View

Barcelos A, Goncalves J, Mateus C, Canhao H, Rodrigues A . Costs of Hip Fractures in Postmenopausal Women in Portugal: A Study from the Payer's Perspective. Acta Med Port. 2023; 36(12):848-849. DOI: 10.20344/amp.20481. View

Rodrigues A, Eusebio M, Santos M, Gouveia N, Tavares V, Coelho P . The burden and undertreatment of fragility fractures among senior women. Arch Osteoporos. 2018; 13(1):22. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-018-0430-z. View

Costa R, Romano J, Moreira A, Dantas D, Ribeiro P, Agre M . The aftermath of hip fragility fractures - are we missing out on osteoporosis treatment?". Acta Reumatol Port. 2021; 46(4):328-332. View

Hiligsmann M, Cornelissen D, Vrijens B, Abrahamsen B, Al-Daghri N, Biver E . Determinants, consequences and potential solutions to poor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and.... Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30(11):2155-2165. PMC: 6811382. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05104-5. View

Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell P, McLellan A, Stenmark J, Pierroz D . Capture the Fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int. 2013; 24(8):2135-52. PMC: 3706734. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-013-2348-z. View

10.

Walters S, Khan T, Ong T, Sahota O . Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis. Clin Interv Aging. 2017; 12:117-127. PMC: 5237590. DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S85551. View

11.

Briot K . Fracture Liaison Services. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2017; 29(4):416-421. DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000401. View

12.

Ganda K, Puech M, Chen J, Speerin R, Bleasel J, Center J . Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2012; 24(2):393-406. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-012-2090-y. View

13.

Paccou J, Philippoteaux C, Cortet B, Fardellone P . Effectiveness of fracture liaison services in osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine. 2023; 90(5):105574. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2023.105574. View

14.

Pflimlin A, Gournay A, Delabriere I, Chantelot C, Puisieux F, Cortet B . Secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: evaluation of the Lille University Hospital's Fracture Liaison Service between January 2016 and January 2018. Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30(9):1779-1788. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05036-0. View

15.

Rodrigues A, Canhao H, Marques A, Ambrosio C, Borges J, Coelho P . Portuguese recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis and management of primary osteoporosis - 2018 update. Acta Reumatol Port. 2018; 43(1):10-31. View

16.

Scholten 2nd D, Bray J, Wang K, Lake A, Emory C . Implementation of a fracture liaison service and its effects on osteoporosis treatment adherence and secondary fracture at a tertiary care academic health system. Arch Osteoporos. 2020; 15(1):80. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-020-00736-1. View

17.

Wu C, Tu S, Chang Y, Chan D, Chien J, Lin C . Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Bone. 2018; 111:92-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2018.03.018. View

18.

Marques A, Lourenco O, Ortsater G, Borgstrom F, Kanis J, da Silva J . Cost-Effectiveness of Intervention Thresholds for the Treatment of Osteoporosis Based on FRAX(®) in Portugal. Calcif Tissue Int. 2016; 99(2):131-41. DOI: 10.1007/s00223-016-0132-8. View

19.

Nakayama A, Major G, Holliday E, Attia J, Bogduk N . Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. Osteoporos Int. 2015; 27(3):873-879. PMC: 4767862. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-015-3443-0. View

20.

Axelsson K, Johansson H, Lundh D, Moller M, Lorentzon M . Association Between Recurrent Fracture Risk and Implementation of Fracture Liaison Services in Four Swedish Hospitals: A Cohort Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2020; 35(7):1216-1223. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3990. View