Closing the osteoporosis management gap in primary care: a secondary prevention of fracture programme

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eamonn Brankin ◽  
Caroline Mitchell ◽  
Robin Munro ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 422-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Filippi ◽  
Diego Vanuzzo ◽  
Angelo A Bignamini ◽  
Gianpiero Mazzaglia ◽  
Ovidio Brignoli ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Shi Ying Tan ◽  
Heather Cronin ◽  
Stephen Byrne ◽  
Adrian O’Donovan ◽  
Antoinette Tuthill

Abstract Background Type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Use of aspirin has been shown to be of benefit for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes; benefits in primary prevention have not been clearly proven. Aims This study aims to (a) determine if aspirin is prescribed appropriately in type 2 diabetes for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and (b) evaluate whether there are differences in aspirin prescribing according to where people receive their care. Design Cross-sectional study Methods The medical records of individuals with type 2 diabetes aged over 18 years and attending Elmwood Primary Care Centre and Cork University Hospital Diabetes outpatient clinics (n = 400) between February and August 2017 were reviewed. Results There were 90 individuals exclusively attending primary care and 310 persons attending shared care. Overall, 49.0% (n = 196) of those were prescribed aspirin, of whom 42.3% were using it for secondary prevention. Aspirin was used significantly more in people attending shared care (p < 0.001). About 10.8% of individuals with diabetes and CVD attending shared care met guidelines for, but were not prescribed aspirin. Conclusion A significant number of people with type 2 diabetes who should have been prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention were not receiving it at the time of study assessment. In contrast, a substantial proportion who did not meet criteria for aspirin use was prescribed it for primary prevention.


BMJ ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 330 (7495) ◽  
pp. 821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Wei ◽  
Shah Ebrahim ◽  
Christopher Bartlett ◽  
Peter D Davey ◽  
Frank M Sullivan ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Odesjo ◽  
S Bjorck ◽  
P Hjerpe ◽  
K Manhem ◽  
A Rosengren ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction The preventive effect of lipid lowering treatment in secondary prevention after coronary heart disease (CHD) is well documented. In 2015, regional guidelines recommend an LDL cholesterol of ≤1.8 mmol/L for patients with established CHD but the adherence to these guidelines is low. Purpose Our aim was to predict potential reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events defined as acute myocardial infarction or stroke if patients: 1) with low-dose/less potent or no statin were treated with Atorvastatin 80 mg, or 2) all reached LDL ≤1.8 mmol/L. Methods In total, 37 120 patients with established CHD in a primary care regional register 2015 were studied. Predicted number of CVD events were calculated with actual treatment, with improved treatment and with lowered LDL. For risk estimation we used data from a Cox Proportional Hazards risk estimation model based on patients from 2010 (n=52 042) in combination with data from the literature on effect of statin treatment and LDL reduction. A risk reduction of 22% for CVD events per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL was used in our model. The risk prediction model included age, sex, diabetes mellitus, a history of heart failure and/or atrial fibrillations, treatment with acetylic salicylic acid and stroke or AMI past year. Smoking and BMI were excluded due to missing data but sensitivity analysis has shown only small differences in results. Results In total, 18% of included patients reached LDL ≤1.8 mmol/L and 32% had no statin treatment. Based on actual LDL levels and treatments, the predicted number of CVD events over 5 years was 9209/37120. If all patients with no statin or less potent statin treatment had been given atorvastatin 80 mg this would lead to a reduction of CVD events by 14% (7901 vs 9209). The largest gain, 33% reduction, occurred when adding statins to patients without previous treatment (1970 vs 2937). Furthermore, if all patients were to reach LDL ≤1.8 mmol/L the predicted number of events would be reduced by 18% (7577 vs 9209). Conclusion There is a substantial potential to reduce the number of CVD events in the large population of patients with established CHD in primary care by improved adherence to lipid treatment guidelines. Acknowledgement/Funding Närhälsan R&D Health Care, R&D Centre Gothenburg and Södra Bohuslän. the Swedish state under the Agreement concerning research and education of doctor


BMJ Open ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. e008678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiten Dodhia ◽  
Liu Kun ◽  
Hugh Logan Ellis ◽  
James Crompton ◽  
Anthony S Wierzbicki ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Matthew Wong-Pack ◽  
Nawazish Naqvi ◽  
George Ioannidis ◽  
Ramy Khalil ◽  
Alexandra Papaioannou ◽  
...  

Previous studies evaluating fracture liaison service (FLS) programs have found them to be cost-effective, efficient, and reduce the risk of fracture. However, few studies have evaluated the clinical effectiveness of these programs. We compared the patient populations of those referred for osteoporosis management by FLS to those referred by primary care physicians (PCP), within the Canadian healthcare system in the province of Ontario. Specifically, we investigated if a referral from FLS is similarly effective as PCP at identifying patients at risk for future osteoporotic fractures and if osteoporosis therapies have been previously initiated. A retrospective chart review of patients assessed by a single Ontario rheumatology practice affiliated with FLS between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, was performed identifying two groups: those referred by FLS within Hamilton and those referred by their PCP for osteoporosis management. Fracture risk of each patient was determined using FRAX. A total of 573 patients (n = 225 (FLS group) and n = 227 (PCP group)) were evaluated. Between the FLS and PCP groups, there were no significant differences in the absolute 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic fracture (15.6% (SD = 10.2) vs 15.3% (SD = 10.3)) and 10-year risk of hip fracture (4.7% (SD = 8.3) vs 4.7% (SD = 6.8)), respectively. 10.7% of patients referred by FLS and 40.5% of patients referred by their PCP were on osteoporosis medication prior to fracture. Our study suggests that referral from FLS is similarly effective as PCP at identifying patients at risk for future osteoporotic fractures, and clinically effective at identifying the care gap with the previous use of targeted osteoporosis therapies from referral from PCP being low and much lower in those referred by FLS. Interventional programs such as FLS can help close the treatment gap by providing appropriate care to patients that were not previously identified to be at risk for fracture by their primary care physician and initiate proper medical management.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Nilsson ◽  
Eva Samuelsson ◽  
Lars Söderström ◽  
Thomas Mooe

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document