Two-country comparison of the prescription of bone protection medication before and early after hip fracture

• Published in: Archives of osteoporosis 2022-12, Vol.18 (1), p.8-8, Article 8
• Main Authors: Halim, Nicole K., Harris, Roger G., Cameron, Ian D., Close, Jacqueline, Harris, Ian A., Hallen, Jamie, Hurring, Sarah, Ward, Nicola, McDougall, Catherine, Mitchell, Rebecca J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: at-risk population; Australia; Australia - epidemiology; Bone Density Conservation Agents - therapeutic use; bone health; cognition; cohort studies; Drug Prescriptions; drug therapy; Endocrinology; hip fractures; Hip Fractures - complications; hospitals; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; New Zealand; Original Article; Orthopedics; Osteoporosis - complications; patients; regression analysis; Retrospective Studies
• ISSN: 1862-3514; 1862-3514
• DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01197-4

Summary Pharmacological management of bone health warrants investigation into factors influencing initiation of bone protection medication (BPM) at discharge after a hip fracture. This sprint audit identified reasons attributed to low BPM treatment levels at hospital discharge which can guide improvement in the prevention of future fractures. Purpose To compare patient characteristics and Australian and New Zealand approaches to prescribing bone protection medication (BPM) pre- or post-hip fracture, determine reasons why BPM was not prescribed earlier post-fracture, and assess the generalisability of sprint audit and the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) patient cohorts. Methods A retrospective cohort study of hip fracture patients from the ANZHFR aged ≥ 50 years (2016–2020) and consecutive patients from the 2021 BPM sprint audit. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with not prescribing BPM. Results Of 55,618 patients admitted with a hip fracture in the ANZHFR, less than 10% of patients in Australia and New Zealand were taking BPM on admission, increasing to 22.4% in Australia and 27.8% in New Zealand on discharge. Registry patients who were younger (50–69 years), healthy (ASA grade 1), lived in a residential aged care facility, had impaired cognition, delirium identified, or were awaiting a specialist falls assessment were less likely to take BPM. Within the audit, 46.2% of patients in Australia and 39.2% in New Zealand did not have BPM in their discharge prescription. The most common reason for not prescribing BPM in Australia was low level of vitamin D (13.3%), and in New Zealand, renal impairment (14.8%). Sprint and registry patient characteristics were comparable in terms of patient age, sex, usual place of residence, and ASA grade. Conclusions BPM prescription early after hip fracture is low. Opportunities exist to increase the rate of prescription of medications known to prevent future fractures in this high-risk population.