Osteoporosis treatment indications following fracture: identifying relevant fracture sites for Fracture Liaison Services.

Osteoporotic fractures are associated with morbidity, mortality and high healthcare costs. Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) prevent subsequent osteoporotic fractures but are traditionally limited to include major osteoporotic fractures (MOF). When the FLS at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde, Sweden included both MOF and non-MOF, treatment indication was present for 51% (Number Needed to Screen (NNS) 1.41) and 71% (NNS 1.95), respectively. High treatment indication rates and low NNS were observed both in patients with MOF and non-MOF, suggesting that all fracture patients should be included in FLSs.

backgroundFracture Liaison Services (FLS) are coordinator-based, multidisciplinary programmes that provide systematic secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Many FLS programmes have been limited to major osteoporotic fractures (MOF, i.e. vertebrae, hip, proximal humerus, wrist and pelvis), but it is unclear whether patients with other types of fractures have similar risk profiles, as defined by low bone mineral density (BMD) and present clinical risk factors (CRF).

objectiveTo compare key characteristics related to fracture risk (e.g. FRAX and BMD) and eligibility for osteoporosis treatment between patients with a recent non-MOF and those with recent MOF after inclusion in an FLS at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde, Sweden.

methodsPatients 50 years and older with a BMD measurement between December 2023 and May 2024, with a recent fracture were included (N = 705). Data on age, sex, CRFs, FRAX score, BMD, trabecular bone score, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and physician-issued assessment of osteoporosis treatment indication from the FLS evaluation were collected. Differences were analyzed using t-tests, chi-square tests, and expressed as standardized mean differences. The odds ratio (OR) for osteoporosis treatment indication (yes/no) was calculated using logistic regression for non-MOF vs. MOF, with adjustment for incremental number of confounders.

resultsThere were high rates of osteoporosis treatment indication in both non-MOF (51%) and MOF (71%) patients, and low numbers needed to screen (NNS) to identify one patient with osteoporosis treatment indication in both the non-MOF (1.95) and MOF groups (1.41). When comparing non-MOF and MOF within the subgroup of patients with osteoporosis treatment indication, BMD and risk profiles were similar.

conclusionThe proportions of patients with osteoporosis treatment indications were high regardless of fracture site category, indicating that patients with both recent non-MOF and MOF should be included in FLS programmes.