B Mugnier1, A Daumas2, S Doddoli3, S Belmeliani3, A-L Couderc3, B Mizzi3, P Lévêque3, P Villani3,2. 1. APHM, Hôpital Sainte Marguerite, Service de Médecine Interne Gériatrie et Thérapeutique, 270 Bd de Sainte Marguerite, 13009, Marseille, France. benedicte.mugnier@ap-hm.fr. 2. APHM, Hôpital La Timone, Service de Médecine Interne Gériatrie et Thérapeutique, 264 rue Saint Pierre, 13005, Marseille, France. 3. APHM, Hôpital Sainte Marguerite, Service de Médecine Interne Gériatrie et Thérapeutique, 270 Bd de Sainte Marguerite, 13009, Marseille, France.
Abstract
Significant dropout rates have been observed throughout Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) programs, especially for elderly patients. In an FLS program set up specifically for patients over 70, the non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was the only factor associated with poor adherence to the program. Neither age nor frailty factors affected adherence. INTRODUCTION: FLS programs are considered the most effective interventions for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Our objective was to identify risk factors for non-adherence to an FLS program set up specifically for patients over 70. METHODS: Our multifaceted, intensive program included five appointments over a 2-year period. One hundred sixty-seven patients (mean age 83.5 years) who presented with a recent fragility fracture were enrolled. Multivariable analysis was conducted to determine whether the demographic, clinical, frailty, and osteoporotic risk factors of the patients influenced their adherence to the program. RESULTS: About half of the patients did not attend the follow-up visits. According to the regression analysis, non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was associated with poor adherence to the program (aHR 3.66). Demographic, clinical, dwelling, frailty factors, osteoporotic risk factors, fracture type, or densitometric scores were not associated with adherence. The first self-reported reason for withdrawal was the difficulty of attending several follow-up visits, and the second was the feeling of not being concerned. CONCLUSION: We observed that non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was the only factor correlated with non-adherence to an FLS program. Thus, neither age nor frailty factors should result in patients not being included in FLS. Beyond the necessity of the osteoporosis treatment, good patient understanding of the relevance of all the interventions included in the program is the key.
Significant dropout rates have been observed throughout Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) programs, especially for elderly patients. In an FLS program set up specifically for patients over 70, the non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was the only factor associated with poor adherence to the program. Neither age nor frailty factors affected adherence. INTRODUCTION: FLS programs are considered the most effective interventions for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Our objective was to identify risk factors for non-adherence to an FLS program set up specifically for patients over 70. METHODS: Our multifaceted, intensive program included five appointments over a 2-year period. One hundred sixty-seven patients (mean age 83.5 years) who presented with a recent fragility fracture were enrolled. Multivariable analysis was conducted to determine whether the demographic, clinical, frailty, and osteoporotic risk factors of the patients influenced their adherence to the program. RESULTS: About half of the patients did not attend the follow-up visits. According to the regression analysis, non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was associated with poor adherence to the program (aHR 3.66). Demographic, clinical, dwelling, frailty factors, osteoporotic risk factors, fracture type, or densitometric scores were not associated with adherence. The first self-reported reason for withdrawal was the difficulty of attending several follow-up visits, and the second was the feeling of not being concerned. CONCLUSION: We observed that non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment was the only factor correlated with non-adherence to an FLS program. Thus, neither age nor frailty factors should result in patients not being included in FLS. Beyond the necessity of the osteoporosis treatment, good patient understanding of the relevance of all the interventions included in the program is the key.
Authors: A Naranjo; S Ojeda-Bruno; A Bilbao-Cantarero; J C Quevedo-Abeledo; B V Diaz-González; C Rodríguez-Lozano Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J Steuart Richards; Grant W Cannon; Candace L Hayden; Richard L Amdur; Deana Lazaro; Ted R Mikuls; Andreas M Reimold; Liron Caplan; Dannette S Johnson; Pascale Schwab; Bogdan N Cherascu; Gail S Kerr Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: E Hernlund; A Svedbom; M Ivergård; J Compston; C Cooper; J Stenmark; E V McCloskey; B Jönsson; J A Kanis Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: H Blain; T Masud; P Dargent-Molina; F C Martin; E Rosendahl; N van der Velde; J Bousquet; A Benetos; C Cooper; J A Kanis; J Y Reginster; R Rizzoli; B Cortet; M Barbagallo; K E Dreinhöfer; B Vellas; S Maggi; T Strandberg Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Mireille Luc; Hélène Corriveau; Gilles Boire; Johanne Filiatrault; Marie-Claude Beaulieu; Isabelle Gaboury Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.390