Golden Jubilee Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Wanglang Road, Bangkoknoi, Bangkok, 10700, Thailand.
BMC Geriatr. 2023 Feb 3;23(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-03778-5.
(1) To evaluate the prescription rate of anti-osteoporosis medication, and (2) to identify factors associated with patients not receiving anti-osteoporosis medication or, when prescribed, not persisting with medication 1 year after hip fracture treatment.
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all fragility hip fracture patients admitted to the orthopedic unit of the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. We identified patients who did not receive anti-osteoporosis medication both 6 months and 1 year after fracture treatment. Patients who did not receive the medication 1 year after their treatment were enrolled and interviewed using a no-treatment questionnaire.
In total, 530 patients with fragility hip fractures were eligible (mean age, 79.0 years), and most (74.5%) were women. Only 148 patients (31.6%) received anti-osteoporosis medication 1 year after hip fracture. Logistic regression analysis identified predictors for not receiving the medication: male sex (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.1-3.0), Charlson comorbidity index score ≥ 5 (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.3), and secondary school education or below (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.3). The main reason for not receiving the medication was that healthcare providers neither discussed nor initiated pharmacological treatment for osteoporosis (48.2%). When the medication was prescribed, non-persistence primarily stemmed from transportation difficulties that resulted in patients missing follow-ups (50.0%).
Improved physician attitudes toward anti-osteoporosis medications might enhance the treatment rate. Developing a follow-up team and facilitating access to medications (eg, courier delivery to patients) would promote therapy compliance.
The protocol for the first phase and second phase was approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand (COA no. Si 180/2021) and for the second phase, patients-informed consent forms used in the cross-sectional component were approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand (COA no. Si 180/2021). The research was registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR number: 20210824002). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Each patient (or a relative/caregiver) provided informed consent in writing or by telephone to participate in this second study phase.
(1) 评估抗骨质疏松药物的处方率,以及 (2) 确定与髋部骨折治疗 1 年后未接受抗骨质疏松药物治疗或接受药物治疗后未持续用药的患者相关的因素。
我们回顾性分析了 2016 年 7 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日期间在玛希敦大学诗里拉吉医院骨科病房收治的所有脆性髋部骨折患者的病历。我们确定了骨折治疗后 6 个月和 1 年未接受抗骨质疏松药物治疗的患者。未在治疗后 1 年接受药物治疗的患者被纳入并使用无治疗问卷进行了访谈。
共有 530 例脆性髋部骨折患者符合条件(平均年龄 79.0 岁),其中大多数(74.5%)为女性。只有 148 例(31.6%)患者在髋部骨折后 1 年接受了抗骨质疏松药物治疗。Logistic 回归分析确定了未接受药物治疗的预测因素:男性(OR 1.8;95%CI 1.1-3.0)、Charlson 合并症指数评分≥5(OR 1.5;95%CI 1.0-2.3)和中学或以下学历(OR 2.0;95%CI 1.2-3.3)。未接受药物治疗的主要原因是医护人员既未讨论也未启动骨质疏松症的药物治疗(48.2%)。当开出处方时,主要的不依从原因是交通不便导致患者错过随访(50.0%)。
改善医生对抗骨质疏松药物的态度可能会提高治疗率。建立随访团队并促进药物获取(例如,将药物快递给患者)将有助于提高治疗依从性。
第一阶段和第二阶段的方案得到了玛希敦大学诗里拉吉医院Siriraj 机构审查委员会的批准(泰国临床试验注册编号:TCTR 编号:20210824002),第二阶段的患者知情同意书得到了玛希敦大学诗里拉吉医院 Siriraj 机构审查委员会的批准(泰国临床试验注册编号:TCTR 编号:20210824002)。研究符合《赫尔辛基宣言》。每位患者(或其亲属/照顾者)以书面或电话形式提供了知情同意书,以参与本研究的第二阶段。