Suscribirse

Interventions to Increase Osteoporosis Treatment in Patients with ‘Incidentally’ Detected Vertebral Fractures - 30/08/12

Doi : 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.02.021 
Sumit R. Majumdar, MD, MPH a, b, , Finlay A. McAlister, MD, MSc a, b, Jeffrey A. Johnson, PhD b, Debbie Bellerose, BScN a, Kerry Siminoski, MD a, David A. Hanley, MD c, Ibrahim Qazi, PhD a, Douglas A. Lier, MA a, Robert G. Lambert, MD d, Anthony S. Russell, MD a, Brian H. Rowe, MD, MSc e
a Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 
b School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 
c Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada 
d Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 
e Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Sumit R. Majumdar, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, 2F1.24 Walter Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440-112th Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2B7, Canada

Abstract

Background

Most vertebral compression fractures are not recognized or treated. We conducted a controlled trial in older patients with vertebral fractures incidentally reported on chest radiographs, comparing usual care with osteoporosis interventions directed at physicians (opinion-leader-endorsed evidence summaries and reminders) or physicians+patients (adding activation with leaflets and telephone counseling).

Methods

Patients aged >60 years who were discharged home from emergency departments and who had vertebral fractures reported but were not treated for osteoporosis were allocated to usual care (control) or physician intervention using alternate-week time series. After 3 months, untreated controls were re-allocated to physician+patient intervention. Allocation was concealed, outcomes ascertainment blinded, and analyses intent-to-treat. Primary outcome was starting osteoporosis treatment within 3 months.

Results

There were 1315 consecutive patients screened, and 240 allocated to control (n=123) or physician intervention (n=117). Groups were similar at baseline (average age 74 years, 45% female, 58% previous fractures). Compared with controls, physician interventions significantly (all P <.001) increased osteoporosis treatment (20 [17%] vs 2 [2%]), bone mineral density testing (51 [44%] vs 5 [4%]), and bone mineral density testing or treatment (57 [49%] vs 7 [6%]). Three months after controls were re-allocated to physician+patient interventions, 22% had started treatment and 65% had bone mineral density testing or treatment (P <.001 vs controls). Physician+patient interventions increased bone mineral density testing or treatment an additional 16% compared with physician interventions (P=.01).

Conclusions

An opinion-leader-based intervention targeting physicians substantially improved rates of bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment in patients with incidental vertebral fractures, compared with usual care. Even better osteoporosis management was achieved by adding patient activation to physician interventions [NCT00388908].

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Guidelines, Osteoporosis, Quality improvement, Treatment, Trials


Esquema


 Funding: Peer-reviewed operating grants from Knowledge Translation Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP #151454), and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR). S.R.M., F.A.M., J.A.J. hold salary awards from AHFMR, and J.A.J. and B.H.R. hold Canada Research Chairs.
 Conflict of Interest: None.
 Authorship: The corresponding author (SRM) had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors were involved in conception and design and analysis and interpretation and provided critical revision to manuscript drafts. IQ also undertook statistical analyses. SRM also wrote the first draft, obtained funding, and supervised the study.


© 2012  Elsevier Inc. Reservados todos los derechos.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 125 - N° 9

P. 929-936 - septembre 2012 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • Insulin Order Sets Improve Glycemic Control and Processes of Care
  • Catherine H.Y. Yu, Xing Hua Sun, Rosane Nisenbaum, Henry Halapy
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • Cardiac Rehabilitation for Women across the Lifespan
  • Karla M. Daniels, Ross Arena, Carl J. Lavie, Daniel E. Forman

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
El acceso al texto completo de este artículo requiere una suscripción.

¿Ya suscrito a @@106933@@ revista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.