Literature DB >> 28093017

The Bone Health Team: A Team-Based Approach to Improving Osteoporosis Care for Primary Care Patients.

Phillip T Lawrence1,2, Marissa P Grotzke1,3, Yanina Rosenblum1, Richard E Nelson1,3, Joanne LaFleur1,3, Karla L Miller1,3, Junjie Ma1,3, Grant W Cannon1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Significant improvements in secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures have been noted with fracture liaison services. However, similar models for the primary prevention of such fractures have not been reported.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a Bone Health Team (BHT) on osteoporosis screening and treatment rates in U.S. veterans in primary care practices.
DESIGN: Historical cohort study of a primary care-based intervention of a BHT from February 2013 to February 2015.
SETTING: Community-based outpatient clinics of the Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Health Care System. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 70 years and older and women aged 65 years and older. INTERVENTION: Enrollment in the BHT. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) completion, chart diagnosis of osteoporosis or osteopenia, completion of vitamin D measurement, and initiation of fracture reducing medication.
RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 7644 individuals, 975 of whom were exposed to the BHT and 6669 of whom were not. Comparison of patients exposed to the BHT versus non-exposed subjects demonstrated a substantial increase in all outcome measures studied. Hazard ratios (HRs) from multivariable cox proportional hazard models were: measurement of vitamin D, HR = 1.619 ( P < .001); chart diagnosis of osteopenia, HR = 37.00 ( P < .001); chart diagnosis of osteoporosis, HR = 16.38 ( P < .001); osteoporosis medication, HR = 17.03 ( P < .001); and completion of DXA, HR = 139.9 ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The implementation of a dedicated BHT produced significantly increased rates of intermediate osteoporosis outcome measures in US veterans in primary care practices. Additional research describing medication adherence rates and cost-effectiveness is forthcoming.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone Health Team; bisphosphonate; collaborative care; osteoporosis; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28093017      PMCID: PMC5932690          DOI: 10.1177/2150131916687888

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prim Care Community Health        ISSN: 2150-1319


Introduction

Affecting an estimated 53.6 million Americans aged 50 years and older, osteoporosis and osteopenia are common disorders responsible for an estimated 2 million fractures annually.[1] Significant improvements in the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures have been noted with the widespread use of fracture liaison services (FLS).[2,3] Other efforts to address secondary prevention have reported limited success.[4-8] With a projected 3 million fractures and an associated $25.3 billion in health care costs annually by 2025,[9] improved primary prevention is critical. Bone mineral density (BMD) screening and early intervention are obvious targets for improving prevention of first fracture. Despite this critical need, few models for the primary prevention of fragility fractures have been described,[10,11] and no team-based primary interventions reported. Published reports continue to document low osteoporosis screening and treatment rates.[12,13] A systematic review of 51 articles found that less than a third of at-risk women received BMD testing.[15] Another study based on Medicare claims during 2002 to 2008 found that less than half of all elderly women had ever had a BMD test.[16] Among males, only about 7% of men received a diagnosis for osteoporosis following a fragility fracture, and even fewer received a BMD scan or received treatment within 1 year.[13-15,17,18] To date, no studies have examined reasons for low screening and treatment in the specific context of male osteoporosis, although data in women suggests that there is considerable uncertainty on the parts of clinicians about how to use BMD test results,[19,20] unfamiliarity with osteoporosis treatment guidelines,[21] and ambiguity about whose role it is to prescribe preventive therapies.[22] To address this important issue, we partnered with primary care providers (PCPs) within the Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Health Care System (SLCVAHCS) to develop a Bone Health Team (BHT) consisting of an endocrinologist, a pharmacist, and a nurse practitioner dedicated to the screening and management of patients at risk for osteoporotic fractures. The BHT manages the screening, diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing monitoring of osteoporosis, on behalf of PCPs, through a collaborative care agreement, using virtual and telephone clinics.

Methods

Patient Enrollment and Care Coordination

The Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System Bone Health Team was established in January 2013 and includes an endocrinologist, a clinical pharmacist, and a nurse practitioner. A collaborative care agreement was established with the Chief of Community-Based Outpatient Clinics and allows for the BHT to enroll patients from any of the 7 community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Lists of patients treated by PCPs constitute “PCP panels.” We generated PCP panels using data available from the Veterans Affairs corporate data warehouse. The BHT evaluated the PCP panels and identified patients with osteoporosis risk factors. The most common risk factor used by the BHT to justify bone density screening was patient age. The BHT offered screening to men aged 70 years and older and women aged 65 years and older. Younger patients (aged 50 years and older) with risk factors were eligible for enrollment in the BHT; however, in order to create a cohort that is readily comparable to non-BHT patients, this analysis describes only the patients that were enrolled based on age. The BHT reviewed the entire PCP panel for an individual provider before proceeding to the next provider. So far, the BHT has completed screening the patient panels of 5 providers from one CBOC and has partially completed the screening of a sixth provider from a second CBOC. Patients were contacted via telephone or letter, and all patient care activities were conducted using virtual and telephone clinics. The BHT managed the patient’s entire osteoporosis care including screening, diagnosis, medication and nonmedication interventions, and ongoing follow-up. When providing patient care, BHT included the PCP as a cosigner to progress notes, thereby keeping the PCP informed and involved.

Bone Health Team Interventions

Screening: The BHT screened patients bone density using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Patients with osteopenia (T-score between −1 and −2.5) or osteoporosis (T-score −2.5 or worse) were evaluated for underlying causes. The BHT ordered serum chemistry; serum parathyroid hormone if any history of stage 3 or worse chronic kidney disease, or if a history of calcium or parathyroid hormone abnormalities; 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels; and testosterone levels if not previously evaluated and patient had other symptoms consistent with possible hypogonadism. If abnormalities were identified during this evaluation, the corresponding potential underlying conditions were evaluated further. In broad terms, the BHT generally used a bone active drug (oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, subcutaneous denosumab, or subcutaneous teriparatide) to treat patients. The rationale that the BHT used to help determine treatment threshold were: generally treat patients with osteoporosis; generally treat if fracture risk of 3% or more at the hip, or 20% or more major osteoporotic fracture risk based on FRAX risk assessment with BMD for patients with osteopenia,[14] include guidance from American College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for patients on chronic glucocorticoids,[15] and include guidance from endocrine society clinical practice guidelines for men with hypogonadism and men receiving androgen deprivation therapy.[16] In addition to pharmacotherapy, the BHT evaluated dietary and supplemental intake of calcium and vitamin D, as well as fall history, fall risk, and weightbearing activity history. The BHT discussed pertinent social history, including alcohol and tobacco use. Based on patient risk factors, BHT made appropriate recommendations, including supplementation of calcium and/or vitamin D if currently insufficient, referrals to physical therapy for core muscle strengthening and balance, referral to occupational therapy for a home safety evaluation, referral to smoking cessation, and encouraging weightbearing activities.

Study Design and Patients

This historical cohort analysis of the BHT described the outcomes of the SLC VA BHT for patients in the CBOCs of the SLCVAHCS from February 1, 2012 through February 1, 2015. Men aged 70 years and older and women aged 65 years and older were included in our cohort. Patients who were not assigned to VA SLC CBOC PCP panel, did not have a PCP appointment in the preindex period, or who died during the preindex period, were excluded from the study. Covariates (summarized in Table 1) were defined in the 1-year preindex period of February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2013 (the year prior to the implementation of the BHT). This analysis was reviewed by the institutional review board of the SLCVAMC and determined to be a quality-of-care analysis and exempt from human subjects review.
Table 1.

Patient Demographics for Patients Enrolled in the Bone Health Team (BHT) Versus Nonenrolled Patients (No BHT).

BHT, N = 975
No BHT, N = 6669
P
n%n%
Demographics
Age (years)
 65-7429430.2159023.8.000
 75-8022322.9171625.7
 80-8524324.9174026.1
 85+21522.1162324.3
Male95397.7653498.0.633
Rural zip code82784.8405360.8<.0001
Married26026.7184227.6.533
White67268.9418562.8.000
Non-VA insurance95898.3642196.3.002
Primary care provider type
 Physician41342.4209931.5<.0001
 Physician’s assistant252.686212.9
 Nurse practitioner53755.1370855.6
Weight (lbs)
 <150788.04356.5.186
 150-20029330.1218032.7
 200-25019319.8124218.6
 250+535.43164.7
Not documented35836.7249637.4
Community-based outpatient clinic
 115015.4184127.6<.0001
 230.3119117.9
 382184.22864.3
 400.0175426.3
 500.01111.7
 600.0109916.5
 710.13104.6
 800.0771.2
Medication use
Testosterone272.81582.4.448
Estrogen00.050.1.392
Corticosteroids161.62233.3.004
Hormone deprivation therapy111.1450.7.121
Phenytoin20.2310.5.248
Comorbidities
Alcoholism00.090.1.251
Smoking606.24897.3.183
Rheumatoid arthritis60.6791.2.113
Diabetes434.41672.5.001
Renal disease626.45628.4.028
Stroke464.72143.2.015
Fall risk202.11372.1.995
Vitamin D deficiency525.367110.1<.0001
Hyperthyroidism80.8520.8.893
Prior fracture20.2360.5.165
Prior outcomes
Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry50.5590.9.234
Osteopenia diagnosis232.4771.2.002
Osteoporosis diagnosis333.41962.9.446
Vitamin D lab21522.1267140.1<.0001
Osteoporosis medication394.01492.2.001
Patient Demographics for Patients Enrolled in the Bone Health Team (BHT) Versus Nonenrolled Patients (No BHT).

Exposures and Outcomes

The primary exposure was enrollment in the BHT, as evidenced by a chart note titled endocrinology bone health e-consult. The outcomes in our analysis were (a) completion of DXA scan, (b) completion of a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D measurement, (c) chart diagnosis of osteopenia, (d) chart diagnosis of osteoporosis, and (e) initiation of a fracture reducing medication. DXA, vitamin D measurement, and fracture reducing medication outcomes reflect actual events during the observation period. Chart diagnosis of osteopenia and osteoporosis are chart diagnoses that may reflect new or prior observations.

Analysis

To measure the impact of BHT exposure on our outcomes, we constructed time-dependent, multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. In these models, patients were followed from the index date, February 1, 2013, until an event, or were censored on February 1, 2015. The BHT intervention began on February 1, 2013. All patients were unexposed and contributed person-time to the unexposed group unless and until they were exposed to BHT intervention, after which time they contributed person-time to the exposed group. The models adjusted for confounding on: age; sex; comorbidities, including alcohol abuse, smoking, diabetes mellitus, prior adulthood fracture, hyperparathyroidism, renal disease, and vitamin D deficiency; drug exposures, including anticonvulsants, aromatase inhibitors, androgen deprivation therapy, and testosterone; site of CBOC; and PCP discipline, including physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner. A separate regression model was constructed for each outcome.

Results

Our cohort consisted of 7644 individuals, 975 of whom were exposed to the BHT and 6669 of whom were not. Descriptive statistics for these individuals are presented in Table 1. Unadjusted rates of each outcome are summarized in Table 2. BHT participants had substantially higher rates of each outcome. This observation was most evident in the DXA and osteopenia outcomes with rate ratios of 76.72 (95% CI = 69.70-84.44) and 26.70 (95% CI = 23.22-30.71), respectively.
Table 2.

Surrogate Outcomes (Crude Rates) of Intermediate Outcome Measures of Primary Evaluation of Osteoporosis for Patients Enrolled in the Bone Health Team (BHT) Versus Patients Not Enrolled in the Bone Health Team (Non-BHT).

BHT Patients, N = 975
Non-BHT patients, N = 6669
Rate Ratio
No. With EventPerson-Time (Days)Rate (per 10 000 Patient-Days)95% CI, LL95% CI,ULNo. with EventPerson-Time (Days)Rate (per 10 000 Patient-Days)95% CI, LL95% CI, ULRate Ratio95% CI, LL95% CI, UL
DXA504249,46520.2018.4822.001335,050,3930.260.220.3176.7169.7084.44
Osteopenia[a]256374,7416.836.027.691295,042,2890.260.210.3026.7023.2230.71
Osteoporosis[b]147410,5523.583.034.182394,989,2010.480.420.547.476.288.90
Medication[c]129430,5883.002.503.531685,012,4410.340.290.398.947.4010.80
25(OH)D [d]369252,86514.5913.1416.123,8833,370,42311.5211.1611.891.271.141.41

Abbreviations: DXA, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; 25(OH)D, 25-hydroxy-vitamin D.

Osteopenia—chart diagnosis of osteopenia.

Osteoporosis—chart diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Medication—medication order for bisphosphonate, denosumab, or teriparitide.

Vitamin D—serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D lab completion.

Surrogate Outcomes (Crude Rates) of Intermediate Outcome Measures of Primary Evaluation of Osteoporosis for Patients Enrolled in the Bone Health Team (BHT) Versus Patients Not Enrolled in the Bone Health Team (Non-BHT). Abbreviations: DXA, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; 25(OH)D, 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Osteopenia—chart diagnosis of osteopenia. Osteoporosis—chart diagnosis of osteoporosis. Medication—medication order for bisphosphonate, denosumab, or teriparitide. Vitamin D—serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D lab completion. To control for confounding we used Cox proportional hazard regressions. The hazard ratios (HRs) from univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regressions are presented in Table 3. Exposure to the BHT was associated with an increased likelihood of having each outcome when controlling for numerous known clinical risk factors for fracture. The effect sizes ranged from HR 1.619 (95% CI = 1.448-1.810) in the case of the vitamin D lab outcome to HR 139.9 (95% CI = 112.4-174.2) for completion of bone density screening (DXA).
Table 3.

Results From Univariate and Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards Regression of Intermediate Outcome Measures of Primary Evaluation of Osteoporosis for Patients Enrolled in the Bone Health Team Versus Patients Not Enrolled in the Bone Health Team.

OutcomeUnivariate Results
Multivariable Results
HR95% Confidence Interval
P HR95% Confidence Interval
P
LowerUpperLowerUpper
DXA111.490.9136.4<.0001139.9112.4174.2<.0001
Vitamin D[a]1.4031.2581.564<.00011.6191.4481.810<.0001
Medication[b]13.7810.7617.64<.000117.0312.7822.70<.0001
Osteopenia[c]36.3429.0145.52<.000137.0029.0047.21<.0001
Osteoporosis[d]11.229.0113.98<.000116.3812.7721.01<.0001

Abbreviations: DXA, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; HR, hazard ratio.

Vitamin D—serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D lab completion.

Medication—medication order for bisphosphonate, denosumab, or teriparitide.

Osteopenia—chart diagnosis of osteopenia.

Osteoporosis—chart diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Results From Univariate and Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards Regression of Intermediate Outcome Measures of Primary Evaluation of Osteoporosis for Patients Enrolled in the Bone Health Team Versus Patients Not Enrolled in the Bone Health Team. Abbreviations: DXA, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; HR, hazard ratio. Vitamin D—serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D lab completion. Medication—medication order for bisphosphonate, denosumab, or teriparitide. Osteopenia—chart diagnosis of osteopenia. Osteoporosis—chart diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Discussion

In this historical cohort study involving patients meeting age-based criteria for osteoporosis screening, we demonstrated that a dedicated team significantly improved rates of osteoporosis screening, diagnosis, and treatment. To our knowledge, no similar team based model for primary evaluation of osteoporosis has been described. Our table of baseline characteristics showed that BHT patients were younger, more likely to live in rural areas, and more likely to have a physician as their PCP. BHT providers repeatedly followed up with patients, and coordinated bone density testing in conjunction with other appointments, which may have contributed to the BHT being more successful at addressing the travel needs of rural patients for completing DXA. BHT offered universal bone density screening for men as young as 70 years and women as young as 65 years, as advocated by the National Osteoporosis Foundation.[23] Without a concerted effort to perform evidenced-based population level screening, patient demand is the typical impetus for accessing health care services. Until first fragility fracture, osteoporosis is a silent disease. Frailty, falls, independence, and previous fragility fracture, which increase patient demand for bone density screening, are more prevalent concerns for older patients. This lack of urgency for primary prevention likely contributes to the age disparity between BHT and non-BHT patients as well as the low rates of osteoporosis screening in standard care. Our analysis has the strengths of being conducted in a comprehensive health care system with an integrated electronic medical record that allowed us to follow our patients longitudinally. Limitations of our study include that it is primarily conducted among elderly men, which may limit generalizability to women, although we reasonably theorize that a BHT could also benefit health systems with a higher proportion of females. Another limitation is that our analysis did not have the ability to compare fracture rates between BHT and standard primary care because of the long follow-up period and large sample size needed to identify these rare events. Consideration should be given to future studies exploring access to DXA for rural patients; gaps in the understanding of importance of osteoporosis screening among patients, particularly men; fracture risk reduction; and the economic viability of the BHT model.

Conclusions

Data from our historical cohort of primary care patients enrolled in the BHT showed significantly higher rates of osteoporosis screening with DXA and therapeutic intervention than current standard primary care practice, suggesting this phone-based, dedicated approach to osteoporosis screening and management may offer a viable method for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fractures.
  22 in total

1.  Closing the gap in postfracture care at the population level: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Lisa LaBine; Penny Klassen; Darlene Dreilich; Patricia A Caetano
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Osteoporosis and the burden of osteoporosis-related fractures.

Authors:  David W Dempster
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 2.229

Review 3.  Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients.

Authors:  D Marsh; K Akesson; D E Beaton; E R Bogoch; S Boonen; M-L Brandi; A R McLellan; P J Mitchell; J E M Sale; D A Wahl
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Risk group for hip fracture in elderly women identified by primary care questionnaire--clinical implications.

Authors:  Daniel Albertsson; Ingrid Gause-Nilsson; Dan Mellström; Robert Eggertsen
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.384

5.  Physician characteristics associated with the use of bone densitometry.

Authors:  L J Papa; B E Weber
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine.

Authors:  Nicole C Wright; Anne C Looker; Kenneth G Saag; Jeffrey R Curtis; Elizabeth S Delzell; Susan Randall; Bess Dawson-Hughes
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Bone health evaluation in a veteran population: a need for the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Authors:  Jamie M Ackman; Paul F Lata; Arthur A Schuna; Mary E Elliott
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.154

8.  Multifaceted intervention to improve diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with recent wrist fracture: a randomized controlled trial.

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

9.  Electronic medical record reminder improves osteoporosis management after a fracture: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Adrianne Feldstein; Patricia J Elmer; David H Smith; Michael Herson; Eric Orwoll; Chuhe Chen; Mikel Aickin; Martha C Swain
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of treatments to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis.

Authors:  Catherine MacLean; Sydne Newberry; Margaret Maglione; Maureen McMahon; Veena Ranganath; Marika Suttorp; Walter Mojica; Martha Timmer; Alicia Alexander; Melissa McNamara; Sheetal B Desai; Annie Zhou; Susan Chen; Jason Carter; Carlo Tringale; Di Valentine; Breanne Johnsen; Jennifer Grossman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-12-17       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  7 in total

1.  A comparison of electronic and manual fracture risk assessment tools in screening elderly male US veterans at risk for osteoporosis.

Authors:  S T Williams; P T Lawrence; K L Miller; J L Crook; J LaFleur; G W Cannon; R E Nelson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-07-30       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Interventions to improve osteoporosis care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  J Martin; M Viprey; B Castagne; B Merle; C Giroudon; R Chapurlat; A-M Schott
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Effect of Topical PTH 1-34 Functionalized to Biogran® in the Process of Alveolar Repair in Rats Submitted to Orchiectomy.

Authors:  Paula Buzo Frigério; Pedro Henrique Silva Gomes-Ferreira; Fábio Roberto de Souza Batista; Juliana Moura; Idelmo Rangel Garcia Júnior; Daniele Botticelli; Paulo Noronha Lisboa-Filho; Roberta Okamoto
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  Testing the Water: Osteoporosis Management in Primary Care.

Authors:  Sindhuja Jothimurugan; Deepali Sanganee; Subramanian Jothimurugan; Sharmistha Williams; Myo Lynn; Arumugam Moorthy
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-10

5.  Engagement in Primary Prevention Program among Rural Veterans With Osteoporosis Risk.

Authors:  Karla L Miller; Kimberly Mccoy; Chris Richards; Aaron Seaman; Samantha L Solimeo
Journal:  JBMR Plus       Date:  2022-10-03

6.  Evaluation of an Osteoporosis Outreach Program for Men With a Fragility Fracture and Their Physicians.

Authors:  Margaret K Pasquale; Richard L Sheer; Alon Yehoshua; Adrienne McFadden; Arkadi Chines; John Caloyeras
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 3.178

7.  Attitudes toward bone health among rural-dwelling veterans identified as at risk of fracture: a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Jennifer M Van Tiem; Melissa J A Steffen; Aaron T Seaman; Karla Miller; Shylo E Wardyn; Christopher C Richards; Samantha L Solimeo
Journal:  JBMR Plus       Date:  2021-05-14
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.