Secondary Prevention of Low-Trauma Fractures: In Search of an Effective Solution
Fracture Liaison Services—A Potential Solution to Enhance Secondary Fracture Prevention
What is a Fracture Liaison Service?
Several solutions have been proposed to remedy the main barriers that interfere with proper secondary treatment of osteoporosis, namely patient education, provider education, and the initiation of programs to enhance coordination and continuity of care between treating teams. Taken together, these interventions have been modestly effective at increasing the odds of BMD measurement and initiation of osteoporosis therapy [98, 99]. Interventions that focused mainly on provider and/or patient education were the least effective, especially when they did not rely on direct in-person interactions, and programs intended to enhance transitions of care were more effective [96,99,100].
These programs are commonly referred to as fracture liaison services (FLS). They aim to identify patients with low-trauma fractures, provide risk assessment and education to the patient, and in some cases provide the patient with post-fracture osteoporosis care. These services typically require a dedicated case manager, who is often a clinical nurse specialist, ideally supported by a medical practitioner with expertise in the treatment of osteoporosis. The FLS case manager uses predetermined protocols that facilitate patient identification, risk assessment and management [101]. Some programs are hospital-based, identifying and evaluating patients while still hospitalized for their hip fracture, and others are based in clinics, aiming to provide services after discharge from the initial acute hospitalization [96,99–101].
How Effective Are Fracture Liaison Services?
Several FLS models have been proposed and tested, with some limited to patient identification and risk stratification, and others more intensive, involving initiation of BMD testing or BMD testing and osteoporosis treatment. In a meta-analysis of FLS programs, Ganda et al grouped programs into 3 categories: Type A programs involved patient identification, assessment and treatment, type B programs involved patient identification and assessment only without treatment, and type C programs involved patient identification combined with alerting of the patients and providers to the need to assess and treat. The effectiveness of the programs in terms of BMD testing and initiation of therapy increased with intensity. Type A programs were the most effective with BMD testing and treatment initiation rates of 79.4% and 46.4% respectively, followed by type B programs which had BMD testing and treatment initiation rates of 59.5% and 40.6% respectively, then type C programs which had BMD testing and treatment initiation rates of 43.4% and 23.4% respectively [100].
The most intensive programs have also been shown to significantly decrease the risk of fracture recurrence, with a reduction in the rate of re-fracture from 19.7% to 4.1% within 4 weeks [102], and a 37.2 % reduction within 3 years [103,104]. Additionally, intensive FLS programs involving pharmacotherapy with a bisphosphonate may be associated with a reduction in mortality after a hip fracture. Beaupre et al evaluated the mortality benefit associated with oral bisphosphonate therapy in the setting of a FLS and demonstrated an 8% decline in mortality per month of oral bisphosphonate use, and an approximate 60% reduction per year of use in comparison to patients who did not receive treatment [105]. This finding was consistent with the reduction in mortality seen with zoledronic acid in the HORIZON trial, which was in part attributable to decreased re-fracture rates, but primarily due to reduction in the occurrence of pneumonia and arrhythmias in patients receiving the drug [57,106].
While fracture liaison services may be associated with increased immediate costs—such as the costs of hiring a case manager, BMD testing and pharmacotherapy, and in some cases a data management system—several cost-effectiveness analyses have shown associated long-term cost savings [107–109]. This is not surprising given that they decrease re-fracture rates, leading to a decline in the very costly immediate and long-term fracture care costs.
Summary
In summary, fragility fractures present a major health care problem for aging populations, leading to significant costs and high morbidity and mortality. Assessment and treatment of osteoporosis following a fragility fracture can decrease the risk of fracture recurrence, long-term costs, morbidities, and possibly mortality. In the last decade, several national and international initiatives have been created to promote and encourage secondary prevention of fragility fractures [110–113]. However, these programs have all been voluntary and there are currently no reliable mechanisms to ensure broad implementation of secondary fracture prevention interventions. As a result, and while several isolated secondary prevention programs have shown great success, most patients with low-trauma fractures still receive suboptimal osteoporosis care.
Corresponding author: Amal Shibli-Rahhal, MD, MS, Dept. of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242.
Financial disclosures:
