Adachi Jonathan D, Brown Jacques P, Schemitsch Emil, Tarride Jean-Eric, Brown Vivien, Bell Alan D, Reiner Maureen, Packalen Millicent, Motsepe-Ditshego Ponda, Burke Natasha, Slatkovska Lubomira
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
CHU de Québec Research Centre and Laval University, Québec, QC, Canada.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Feb 26;22(1):224. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04051-9.
The secondary fracture prevention gap in the osteoporosis field has been previously described as a 'crisis'. Closing this gap is increasingly important in the context of accumulating evidence showing that an incident fragility fracture is associated with an increased risk of subsequent fracture within 1-2 years, known as imminent fracture risk. The objective of this study was to use health services data to characterize the time between index fragility fractures occurring at different osteoporotic sites and subsequent fractures.
This retrospective observational study used de-identified health services data from the publicly funded healthcare system in Ontario, the largest province of Canada. Patients aged > 65 with an index fragility fracture occurring between 2011 and 2015 were identified from the ICES Data Repository using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. We examined median time to subsequent fragility fractures for osteoporotic fracture sites until the end of follow-up (2017). BMD assessment and use of osteoporosis therapies following index fracture were also characterized.
Among 115,776 patients with an index fragility fracture, 17.8% incurred a second fragility fracture. Median time between index and second fracture occurring at any site was 555 days (interquartile range: 236-955). For each index fracture site examined, median time from index to second fracture was < 2 years. The proportion of patients with BMD assessment was 10.3% ≤1 year prior to and 16.4% ≤1 year post index fracture. The proportion of patients receiving osteoporosis therapy was 29.8% ≤1 year prior, 34.6% ≤1 year post, and 25.9% > 3 years post index fracture.
This cohort of Canadian patients aged > 65 years who experienced a fragility fracture at any site are at imminent risk of experiencing subsequent fracture within the next 2 years and should be proactively assessed and treated.
骨质疏松领域二级骨折预防差距此前被描述为一场“危机”。鉴于越来越多的证据表明,初次脆性骨折与1 - 2年内再次骨折风险增加相关(即临近骨折风险),缩小这一差距变得越发重要。本研究的目的是利用医疗服务数据来描述不同骨质疏松部位初次脆性骨折与后续骨折之间的时间间隔。
这项回顾性观察性研究使用了来自加拿大最大省份安大略省公共资助医疗系统的匿名医疗服务数据。利用国际疾病分类(ICD)-10编码,从ICES数据存储库中识别出2011年至2015年间发生初次脆性骨折的65岁以上患者。我们研究了骨质疏松骨折部位至后续脆性骨折的中位时间,直至随访结束(2017年)。还对初次骨折后的骨密度评估和骨质疏松治疗的使用情况进行了描述。
在115,776例初次脆性骨折患者中,17.8%发生了第二次脆性骨折。任何部位初次骨折与第二次骨折之间的中位时间为555天(四分位间距:236 - 955)。对于所检查的每个初次骨折部位,从初次骨折到第二次骨折 的中位时间均小于2年。初次骨折前≤1年进行骨密度评估的患者比例为10.3%,初次骨折后≤1年的比例为16.4%。初次骨折前≤1年接受骨质疏松治疗的患者比例为29.8%,初次骨折后≤1年的比例为34.6%,初次骨折后>3年的比例为25.9%。
这组65岁以上在任何部位发生过脆性骨折的加拿大患者在未来2年内有临近再次骨折的风险,应进行积极评估和治疗。