N Yuksel1, S R Majumdar, C Biggs, R T Tsuyuki. 1. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, 3126 Dentistry/Pharmacy Centre, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2N8, Canada. nyuksel@pharmacy.ualberta.ca
Abstract
SUMMARY: This study evaluated the effect of a multifaceted intervention (screening and patient education) by community pharmacists on testing or treatment of osteoporosis. One hundred and twenty-nine patients randomized to receive the intervention were compared to 133 patients who did not receive the intervention. Twice as many patients who got the intervention received further testing or treatment for osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a community pharmacist screening program on testing and treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial, 262 patients meeting bone mineral density (BMD) testing guidelines [men or women aged > or = 65 years or 50-64 years with one major risk factor including previous fracture, family history of osteoporosis, glucocorticoids for > 3 months, or early menopause] were allocated to intervention (129) or control (133). Intervention consisted of printed materials, education, and quantitative ultrasound. Primary outcome was a composite endpoint of BMD or prescription for osteoporosis medication within 4 months. RESULTS: Primary endpoint of BMD or osteoporosis treatment was achieved by 28 intervention patients (22%) compared with 14 controls (11%) (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.7). This was driven by BMD testing (28 (22%) vs. 13 (10%) for controls, p = 0.011). Calcium intake increased more among intervention patients than controls (30% vs. 19%, RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.5). There was no effect on knowledge or quality of life. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist screening program doubled the number of patients tested for osteoporosis. Nevertheless, many patients eligible for BMD did not receive appropriate care suggesting more intensive interventions are needed.
RCT Entities:
SUMMARY: This study evaluated the effect of a multifaceted intervention (screening and patient education) by community pharmacists on testing or treatment of osteoporosis. One hundred and twenty-nine patients randomized to receive the intervention were compared to 133 patients who did not receive the intervention. Twice as many patients who got the intervention received further testing or treatment for osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a community pharmacist screening program on testing and treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial, 262 patients meeting bone mineral density (BMD) testing guidelines [men or women aged > or = 65 years or 50-64 years with one major risk factor including previous fracture, family history of osteoporosis, glucocorticoids for > 3 months, or early menopause] were allocated to intervention (129) or control (133). Intervention consisted of printed materials, education, and quantitative ultrasound. Primary outcome was a composite endpoint of BMD or prescription for osteoporosis medication within 4 months. RESULTS: Primary endpoint of BMD or osteoporosis treatment was achieved by 28 intervention patients (22%) compared with 14 controls (11%) (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.7). This was driven by BMD testing (28 (22%) vs. 13 (10%) for controls, p = 0.011). Calcium intake increased more among intervention patients than controls (30% vs. 19%, RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.5). There was no effect on knowledge or quality of life. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist screening program doubled the number of patients tested for osteoporosis. Nevertheless, many patients eligible for BMD did not receive appropriate care suggesting more intensive interventions are needed.
Authors: Jeffrey R Curtis; Andrew O Westfall; Jeroan Allison; Angela Becker; Mary Elkins Melton; Allison Freeman; Catarina I Kiefe; Marilyn MacArthur; Theresa Ockershausen; Emily Stewart; Norm Weissman; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-03-26
Authors: D H Solomon; J S Finkelstein; J M Polinski; M Arnold; A Licari; D Cabral; C Canning; J Avorn; J N Katz Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2006-01-24 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sumit R Majumdar; Jeffrey A Johnson; Finlay A McAlister; Debbie Bellerose; Anthony S Russell; David A Hanley; Don W Morrish; Walter P Maksymowych; Brian H Rowe Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Sumit R Majumdar; Brian H Rowe; Deb Folk; Jeffrey A Johnson; Brian H Holroyd; Donald W Morrish; Walter P Maksymowych; Ivan P Steiner; Charles H Harley; Brian J Wirzba; David A Hanley; Sandra Blitz; Anthony S Russell Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-09-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Jennifer M Polinski; Margaret Stedman; Colleen Truppo; Laura Breiner; Catherine Egan; Saira Jan; Minal Patel; Thomas W Weiss; Ya-ting Chen; M Alan Brookhart Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: M Hiligsmann; M Salas; D A Hughes; E Manias; F H Gwadry-Sridhar; P Linck; W Cowell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: M-C Laliberté; S Perreault; A Dragomir; J Goudreau; I Rodrigues; L Blais; N Damestoy; D Corbeil; L Lalonde Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 4.507