Literature DB >> 30040140

Comparing Strategies Targeting Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures After an Upper Extremity Fracture (C-STOP Trial): A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Sumit R Majumdar1, Finlay A McAlister1, Jeffrey A Johnson2, Brian H Rowe3, Debbie Bellerose1, Imran Hassan4, Douglas A Lier1, Stephanie Li1, Walter P Maksymowych1, Matthew Menon5, Anthony S Russell1, Brian Wirzba1, Lauren A Beaupre6.   

Abstract

We compared osteoporosis care after upper extremity fragility fracture using a low-intensity Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) versus a high-intensity FLS in a pragmatic patient-level parallel-arm comparative effectiveness trial undertaken at a Canadian academic hospital. A low-intensity FLS (active-control) that identified patients and notified primary care providers was compared to a high-intensity FLS (case manager) where a specially-trained nurse identified patients, investigated bone health, and initiated appropriate treatment. A total of 361 community-dwelling participants 50 years or older with upper extremity fractures who were not on bisphosphonate treatment were included; 350 (97%) participants completed 6-month follow-up undertaken by assessors blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was difference in bisphosphonate treatment between groups 6 months postfracture; secondary outcomes included differences in bone mineral density (BMD) testing and a predefined composite measure termed "appropriate care" (taking or making an informed decision to decline medication for those with low BMD; not taking bisphosphonate treatment for those with normal BMD). Absolute differences (%), relative risks (RR with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]), number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and direct costs were compared. A total of 181 participants were randomized to active-control and 180 to case-manager using computer-generated randomization; the groups were similar on study entry. At 6 months, 51 (28%) active-control versus 86 (48%) case-manager participants started bisphosphonate treatment (20% absolute difference; RR 1.70; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.24; p < 0.0001; NNT = 5). Of active-controls, 108 (62%) underwent BMD testing compared to 128 (73%) case-managed patients (11% absolute difference; RR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.36; p = 0.03). Appropriate care was received by 76 (44%) active-controls and 133 (76%) case-managed participants (32% absolute difference; RR 1.73; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.09; p < 0.0001). The direct cost per participant was $18 Canadian (CDN) for the active-control intervention compared to $66 CDN for the case-manager intervention. In summary, case-management led to substantially greater improvements in bisphosphonate treatment and appropriate care within 6 months of fracture than the active control.
© 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AGING; CLINICAL TRIALS; FRACTURE PREVENTION; INJURY/FRACTURE HEALING; OSTEOPOROSIS

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30040140     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  8 in total

1.  Adherence to osteoporosis therapy after an upper extremity fracture: a pre-specified substudy of the C-STOP randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  F A McAlister; C Ye; L A Beaupre; B H Rowe; J A Johnson; D Bellerose; I Hassan; S R Majumdar
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Quality Improvement Initiatives in Fragility Fracture Care and Prevention.

Authors:  Paul J Mitchell; Cyrus Cooper; Masaki Fujita; Philippe Halbout; Kristina Åkesson; Matthew Costa; Karsten E Dreinhöfer; David R Marsh; Joon-Kiong Lee; Ding-Cheng Derrick Chan; M Kassim Javaid
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.096

3.  Effect of coordinator-based osteoporosis intervention on quality of life in patients with fragility fractures: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  R Okuda; M Osaki; Y Saeki; T Okano; K Tsuda; T Nakamura; Y Morio; H Nagashima; H Hagino
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women - a logical step in reducing the osteoporotic fracture burden?

Authors:  E V McCloskey; P Chotiyarnwong; N C Harvey; M Lorentzon; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 5.071

5.  Is it time to consider population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women? A position paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation Epidemiology/Quality of Life Working Group.

Authors:  P Chotiyarnwong; E V McCloskey; N C Harvey; M Lorentzon; D Prieto-Alhambra; B Abrahamsen; J D Adachi; F Borgström; O Bruyere; J J Carey; P Clark; C Cooper; E M Curtis; E Dennison; M Diaz-Curiel; H P Dimai; D Grigorie; M Hiligsmann; P Khashayar; E M Lewiecki; P Lips; R S Lorenc; S Ortolani; A Papaioannou; S Silverman; M Sosa; P Szulc; K A Ward; N Yoshimura; J A Kanis
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 2.879

6.  Osteoporosis in 10 years time: a glimpse into the future of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Giovanni Adami; Angelo Fassio; Davide Gatti; Ombretta Viapiana; Camilla Benini; Maria I Danila; Kenneth G Saag; Maurizio Rossini
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2022-03-20       Impact factor: 5.346

7.  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

Review 8.  Efficacy and efficiency of fracture liaison services to reduce the risk of recurrent osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  M K Javaid
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 3.636

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.