4.2 Review

Closing the Osteoporosis Care Gap

Journal

CURRENT OSTEOPOROSIS REPORTS
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 58-65

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11914-020-00644-w

Keywords

Fracture; Prevention; Fracture liaison service; Frailty; Elderly

Funding

  1. Lund University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite ongoing challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis, there is increasing awareness and momentum in implementing systematic risk assessment and secondary fracture prevention programs. The key components of a successful secondary prevention model include a dedicated fracture coordinator, anti-osteoporosis medications, and multifaceted falls prevention. Implementation of structured care pathways has shown to reduce re-fracture rates and be cost-effective.
Purpose of Review This review outlines the scope of the problem in osteoporosis care and secondary fracture prevention and describes fracture prevention strategies, with a focus on the frail elderly. Recent Findings Despite heightened awareness among patients and clinicians alike and the availability of efficacious anti-osteoporosis medications, osteoporosis is still underdiagnosed and undertreated. However, the introduction of systematic risk assessment and secondary fracture prevention programmes has gained momentum, and evidence of success is accumulating. Summary We possess today the knowledge required to close the osteoporosis care gap. The basic components in a secondary prevention model are similar in all health care settings, number one being a dedicated fracture coordinator, with anti-osteoporosis medications and multifaceted falls prevention as cornerstones, particularly in the frailest, both in the near and long-term. Initiation of structured care pathways including the key elements - identification, investigation, intervention and follow-up of adherence - demonstrably reduces re-fracture rates and is cost-effective.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available