ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2017
Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis Before and After Fracture: A Side-by-Side Analysis of Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Osteoporosis Patients.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mind the Gap: Predictors of Osteoporosis Treatment Following Fragility Fracture in Parkinsonism.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Article
- Osteoporosis documentation following hip fracture: a retrospective cohort study from a tertiary hospital.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- A programmatic approach to osteoporosis treatment: insight from a 20-year longitudinal study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Male osteoporosis: pathophysiology, risk assessment, and evidence-based management.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Assessing the burden of osteoporosis and clinical fragility fractures in the French general population: insights from linked healthcare claims and health interview survey data used for surveillance.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Article
- Burden of screening and treatment of bone health markers amongst elderly patients with proximal femur fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Opportunistic assessment of osteoporosis using hip and pelvic X-rays with OsteoSight™: validation of an AI-based tool in a US population.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Article
- Osteoporosis in Men: an Overlooked Patient Population.Current osteoporosis reports · 2025Review
- Article
- Development and validation of a generalizable electronic frailty index: a prospective study in China.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Osteoporosis testing and treatment remain low in both Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Article
- Declining Trend in Anti-osteoporotic Treatment, Despite a Rise in DEXA Screening Following "Sentinel" Distal Radius Fractures.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- The influence of osteoporosis on mechanical complications in lumbar fusion surgery: a systematic review.North American Spine Society journal · 2024Review
- Health Insurance Coverage as a Social Determinant of Osteoporosis Diagnosis in a Population-Based Cohort Study of Older American Adults.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2023Article
- Medical management patterns in a US commercial claims database following a nontraumatic fracture in postmenopausal women.Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Article
- Anti-osteoporosis drug use: too little, too much, or just right? The HUNT study, Norway.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018Article
- Low rates of osteoporosis treatment after hospitalization for hip fracture in Hawaii.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough treatment for osteoporosis is recommended by U.S. clinical guidelines, a lack of diagnosis and treatment is common among patients with osteoporotic fractures.
objectiveTo determine the rates of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment before and after various types of fractures.
methodsThis was a retrospective claims analysis using data from the Humana Medicare Advantage claims (Medicare group) and Optum Insight Clinformatics Data Mart commercial claims (Commercial group). Patients included in the study had a claim for a qualifying fracture occurring between January 2008 and December 2013 (the index fracture), were continuously enrolled in the health plan for ≥ 1 year before and after the index fracture, and were aged ≥ 65 years in the Medicare group or ≥ 50 years in the Commercial group at the time of the index fracture. Fragility fractures and osteoporosis diagnoses were identified from ICD-9-CM codes. Treatment for osteoporosis included oral and injectable therapies identified by National Drug Code numbers and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes. Diagnosis and treatment rates were assessed during the 1-year periods before and after the index fracture. All analyses were conducted by fracture type (vertebral, hip, nonhip/nonvertebral [NHNV], and multiple), with stratification by age and sex. No comparisons were made between the Medicare and Commercial groups; rather, McNemar tests were used to compare prefracture versus postfracture diagnosis and treatment rates within each group.
resultsFor inclusion in the Medicare group, 45,603 patients were identified, and 54,145 patients were identified for the Commercial group. In the prefracture period, the osteoporosis diagnosis rates ranged from 12.0% (NHNV) to 21.5% (vertebral) in the Medicare group and from 5.3% (NHNV) to 12.1% (vertebral) in the Commercial group. In the postfracture period, diagnosis rates significantly increased (P < 0.001)-and nearly doubled-for all fracture types but did not exceed 42.1% (vertebral) in the Medicare group and 27.7% (vertebral) in the Commercial group. Pre-index treatment rates were similarly low, ranging from 9.4% (hip) to 16.6% (vertebral) among Medicare patients, and 7.5% (NHNV) to 14.4% (vertebral) in Commercial patients. Osteoporosis treatment rates improved significantly in the postfracture year, ranging from 12.5% (NHNV) to 26.5% (vertebral) among Medicare patients, and 8.3% (NHNV) to 21.4% (vertebral) in Commercial patients. Larger increases in diagnosis rates and smaller increases in treatment rates were observed in stratified analyses of men and women and of different age groups, with women and older patients having higher overall rates of diagnosis and treatment before and after fracture.
conclusionsIn men and women, osteoporosis diagnosis rates were low before the index fracture and improved substantially after the fracture, yet still remained low overall (under 50%). Osteoporosis treatment rates among patients experiencing a fracture were low before the index fracture and improved only minimally afterwards. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Merck & Co. Other than through the employer relationship disclosed here, Merck & Co. did not have a role in the study design, data collection, interpretation of the data, in writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Weaver is an employee of Merck & Co. Sajjan was an employee of Merck & Co. and owned stock in the company at the time of the study. Lewiecki has received consulting and/or speaker honoraria from Merck & Co., AbbVie, AgNovos Healthcare, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Radius Health, Shire, and TheraNova, along with research grant support from Merck & Co., Amgen, and Eli Lilly and Company, and serves as a board member for the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry, and the Osteoporosis Foundation of New Mexico. Harris has received consulting honoraria from Merck & Co., Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Primus Pharmaceuticals, and Radius Health. Study concept and design were contributed by Weaver and Sajjan. Sajjan collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written and revised by Weaver, Lewiecki, and Harris.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.