Citations

Abstract Context Osteoanabolic therapy for osteoporosis should be followed by antiresorptive treatment (“consolidation”) to preserve bone mass. Although osteoanabolic therapy is increasingly endorsed for primary fracture prevention, real-world implementation of consolidation remains unknown. Objective To assess patterns and predictors of timely consolidation after osteoanabolic therapy for primary fracture prevention. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using US commercial, Medicare Advantage, and traditional Medicare claims data. Adults aged ≥50 years who initiated romosozumab, teriparatide, or abaloparatide between 2011 and 2022 were included. The primary outcome was timely consolidation, defined as initiation of an antiresorptive medication within 3 months after osteoanabolic therapy. Secondary outcomes included delayed consolidation (initiation >3 months after completion), osteoanabolic restart following a treatment gap, and no consolidation therapy. We further distinguished participants who completed the full osteoanabolic course, defined as ≥12 months for romosozumab and ≥18 months for teriparatide or abaloparatide. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of consolidation patterns. Results Among 15 389 patients (mean age 70.6 years; 89% women; 85% White), 30% completed osteoanabolic therapy (median, 12.9 months for romosozumab; 23.4 months for teriparatide/abaloparatide). Overall, 25% had timely consolidation, 24% delayed consolidation, 12% restarted osteoanabolics, and 40% had no consolidation; only 12% completed therapy with timely consolidation. Timely consolidation was more likely with endocrinology (OR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.48) or rheumatology (OR 1.45; 1.30-1.62) vs primary care, and less likely among patients aged 50-64 years (OR 0.67; 0.58-0.77) vs 65-74, those enrolled in Medicare Advantage (OR 0.85; 0.74-0.98) vs traditional Medicare, or those recently hospitalized (OR 0.88; 0.80-0.97). Odds increased over time (OR 4.27; 3.63-5.05 for 2021 vs 2011 starts). Conclusion Only 1 in 4 patients received timely consolidation therapy after osteoanabolic treatment, and 1 in 8 completed the full sequence. Strategies to improve consolidation in primary fracture prevention are needed.

This cohort study examines the clinical implementation of timely consolidation with antiresorptive therapy to preserve bone mineral density gains and reduce fracture risk.

Abstract Context A national assessment of osteoporosis drug therapy (ODT) use can inform the extent of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of osteoporosis. Objective The aim was to describe trends in ODT use by age, sex, fragility fracture, and documented osteoporosis. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of patient-quarter observations for adults aged ≥50 years with commercial or Medicare Advantage health insurance in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse between 2011 and 2022. The primary outcome was the proportion of patient-quarter observations with ODT use stratified by age, sex, fragility fracture, and documented osteoporosis. Cuzick tests were performed to assess trends ODT use. Results Analysis of 166 673 420 patient-quarter observations revealed that over 70% of patients with fragility fractures did not have documented osteoporosis. Among women aged ≥65 years with documented osteoporosis, ODT fill rates increased between 2011 and 2022 from 36.3% to 50.1% for women without fragility fractures (P < .001) and from 30.8% to 43.7% for women with fragility fractures (P < .001). However, ODT fill rates declined (9.2% to 7.4% between 2011 and 2022) for women with fragility fractures and no documented osteoporosis (P = .015). Similar trends were observed among women aged 50-64 years and men. Conclusion ODT use for patients with documented osteoporosis has increased but remains low. Low rates of ODT use for patients with fragility fractures in the absence of documented osteoporosis suggests that underdiagnosis of osteoporosis contributes to underuse of ODTs.

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the need for practice-wide quality improvement to support evidence-based type 2 diabetes screening for women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) receiving primary care. We sought to add the diagnosis of GDM to the problem list of women who did not have it at baseline. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We identified all women in our practice with a history of GDM diagnosed between 2002 and 2023, quantified the proportion with GDM documented in their problem list, and examined patient- and clinician-level factors associated with having GDM appropriately documented at baseline. RESULTS We identified 203 women with GDM receiving primary care within internal medicine. Of the 203 women, 73 (35.0%) did not have GDM documented in their problem list. Of those without GDM included on the problem list, 52% were overdue for type 2 diabetes screening compared with 41% of those with GDM documented before our intervention. We found race, parity, and previous abnormal glycemic laboratory test results to be highly predictive of whether the history of GDM was on patients’ problem list. Upon completion of our intervention, we successfully achieved a 100% documentation rate for GDM diagnosis for women who previously lacked documentation in their problem list. CONCLUSION This work paves the way for targeted interventions aimed at improving care for women with a history of GDM, including delivery of interventions and education to prevent the onset of an appropriate clinical screening for type 2 diabetes.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy that carries lasting risks. For women who have a history of GDM, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases by 50 to 60%. To monitor and prevent the development of T2DM, guidelines suggest screening those with a history of GDM at 6-weeks and 3-years post-delivery. For patients with abnormal lab results at the 6-week mark, it is advised to complete lab work sooner, at the 1-year mark. Data suggests that these guidelines are not being followed globally, and most do not receive adequate screening for T2DM. Methods: A retroactive chart review of 203 women between 18 and 55 years old with a past medical history significant for GDM was conducted to determine if patients with GDM completed screening for T2DM at 6-week, 1-year, and 3-year timestamps post-delivery. Patient demographics (age, race, ethnicity, language), clinical characteristics (body mass index), provider gender, and whether prediabetes or T2DM developed were recorded. Patients who did not complete the required follow-up received educational materials via the online portal system, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) screening tests were ordered. Results: Ninety days post-intervention, 38 patients (50%) completed the HbA1c screening test, which exceeded our goal of a 5% improvement. Age and BMI 1-year postpartum were found to be significant factors in whether a patient completed HbA1c screening, with 16/18 (89%) completing screening with a healthy BMI 1-year postpartum (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25.0) but only 11/41 (27%) completing screening for patients under 40 years with an unhealthy BMI 1-year postpartum. Of the 38 patients who completed HbA1c screening, 9 (23.7%) had abnormal screening results. Conclusion: Follow-up surveillance for T2DM among women with a history of GDM is poor. Electronic health records can be used to identify and rectify gaps in care. Dissemination of standardized educational materials and electronic order entry for patients improved screening between the handoff from obstetrics to primary care.