Therapeutic inertia in osteoporosis in postmenopausal women
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v40i5.13974Keywords:
Osteoporosis, Therapeutic inertia, Primary health careAbstract
Introduction: Osteoporosis (OP) is the most frequent metabolic bone disease, associated with fragility fractures and increased morbimortality. Despite population aging, there has been a downward trend in the implementation of anti-osteoporotic therapy.
Objectives: To determine the therapeutic inertia in OP in postmenopausal women in primary health care. Verify whether age, T-score, the FRAX value, and anti-osteoporotic therapeutic inertia are associated.
Methods: Cross-sectional observational study. Inclusion criteria: women aged between 55 and 85 coded with OP (ICPC-2 – L95) or fractures (ICPC-2 – L72-76) in the list of problems. A simple random sample was selected. Therapeutic inertia was defined based on the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology recommendations.
Results: A sample of 217 patients was obtained. Therapeutic inertia was found in 17.5% of women, which increased to 48.6% in those who suffered fractures (p<0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between the ages of patients with and without therapeutic inertia (77.5 vs 73.0, p<0.010). The median FRAX for major osteoporotic fracture (16.5 vs 9.65, p<0.001) and hip fracture (7.6 vs 3.3, p<0.001) was higher in the group with therapeutic inertia. The difference between T-score values for the lumbar spine (2.45 vs 2.71) and the femoral neck (2.07 vs 2.02) did not reach statistical significance (p=0.299).
Conclusion: This study highlights the application of the most recent national guidelines regarding osteoporosis treatment in the studied health care unit, but underlines the need for broader intervention in osteoporosis-related fractures and at older ages.
Downloads
References
1. Branco JC, Rodrigues AM, Gouveia N, Eusébio M, Ramiro S, Machado PM, et al. Prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and their impact on health-related quality of life, physical function and mental health in Portugal: results from EpiReumaPt – a national health survey. RMD Open. 2016;2(1):e000166.
2. Faienza MF, Ventura A, Marzano F, Cavallo L. Postmenopausal osteoporosis: the role of immune system cells. Clin Dev Immunol. 2013;2013:575936.
3. Rodrigues AM, Canhão H, Marques A, Ambrósio C, Borges J, Coelho P, et al. Portuguese recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis and management of primary osteoporosis: 2018 update. Acta Reumatol Port. 2018;43 Suppl:123-44.
4. Marques A, Rodrigues AM, Romeu JC, Ruano A, Barbosa AP, Simões E, et al. Recomendações multidisciplinares portuguesas sobre o pedido de DXA e indicação de tratamento de prevenção das fraturas de fragilidade [Portuguese recommendations for ordering bone densitometry measurement and indications for treatment to prevent osteoporotic fractures]. Rev Port Med Geral Fam. 2016;32(6):425-41. Portuguese
5. Pedrosa VT, Pinto BO, Baptista Leite R, Guimarães MC, Araújo FC. Undertreatment of hip fragility fractures in the primary care setting: a 5-year nationwide perspective from Portugal. In: WCO IOF-ESCEO virtual congress, August 26-28, 2021. poster 616.
6. Torres CI. Prescrição de fármacos antiosteoporóticos e fatores que motivam a prescrição um ano após fratura da anca [dissertation]. Coimbra: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Coimbra; 2015. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10316/30667
7. McCloskey E, Rathi J, Heijmans S, Blagden M, Cortet B, Czerwinski E, et al. The osteoporosis treatment gap in patients at risk of fracture in European primary care: a multi-country cross-sectional observational study. Osteoporos Int. 2021;32(2):251-9.
8. Iconaru L, Smeys C, Baleanu F, Kinnard V, Moreau M, Cappelle S, et al. Osteoporosis treatment gap in a prospective cohort of volunteer women. Osteoporos Int. 2020;31(7):1377-82.
9. Naik-Panvelkar P, Norman S, Elgebaly Z, Elliott J, Pollack A, Thistlethwaite J, et al. Osteoporosis management in Australian general practice: an analysis of current osteoporosis treatment patterns and gaps in practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):32.
10. Alami S, Hervouet L, Poiraudeau S, Briot K, Roux C. Barriers to effective postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment: a qualitative study of patients’ and practitioners’ views. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0158365.
11. Elliott-Rudder M, Harding C, McGirr J, Seal A, Pilotto L. Using electronic medical records to assess the rate of treatment for osteoporosis in Australia. Aust Fam Physician. 2017;46(7):508-12.
12. Willers C, Norton N, Harvey NC, Jacobson T, Johansson H, Lorentzon M, et al. Osteoporosis in Europe: a compendium of country-specific reports. Arch Osteoporos. 2022;17(1):23.
13. El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, Gadallah N, Mahran S, Fathi N, Abu-Zaid MH, et al. Osteoporosis treatment gap in patients at risk of fracture in Egypt: a multi-center, cross-sectional observational study. Arch Osteoporos. 2023;18(1):58.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors will assign to the RPMGF the sole right to publish and distribute the content of the manuscript specified in this declaration via physical, electronic, broadcasting or any other medium that may come into existence. They also grant the RPMGF the right to use and exploit this manuscript, in particular by assigning, selling or licensing its content. This permission is permanent and takes effect from the moment the manuscript is submitted, has the maximum duration allowed by applicable Portuguese or international law and is of worldwide scope. The authors further declare that this assignment is made free of charge. If the RPMGF informs the authors that it is not going to publish their manuscript, the exclusive assignment of rights ceases forthwith.
The authors authorise the RPMGF (or any entity it may appoint) to act on their behalf when it believes that copyright may have been infringed.
